Sticking young people with the bill
A theme that is getting all too familiar. Students at Montgomery Blair High School in Silver Spring were mighty offended when President Bush used their school as a stage to promote his Social Security privatization plan a few weeks ago.
They turned out in force to protest, taking over the streets and turning the whole event into a PR nightmare for Bush, Rove, and their team. We caught the whole thing on film and the photos rock.
Now it seems that, after assurances that the White House would pay its own way, the school district---meaning the students---have been stuck with the bill. Talk about adding insult to injury!
Here's what the Washington Examiner has to say:
The organizers of the event assured the press at the time that the school was not being asked to subsidize the President's visit. After all, sticking young people with the debt would go against everything that they are trying to do, right?
Riiiiight...
Really, a few thousand bucks seems like a bargain compared to the $851 billion that the leaders in the House of Representatives are proposing to add to the national debt with their plan to privatize Social Security.
They turned out in force to protest, taking over the streets and turning the whole event into a PR nightmare for Bush, Rove, and their team. We caught the whole thing on film and the photos rock.
Now it seems that, after assurances that the White House would pay its own way, the school district---meaning the students---have been stuck with the bill. Talk about adding insult to injury!
Here's what the Washington Examiner has to say:
Did Bush's sponsors stiff the county?
By PATRICK RUCKER
Examiner Staff Writer
When President George W. Bush visited a Montgomery County public school in June to tout his Social Security plan, the event's sponsors failed to pay a $7,300 bill, officials say.
Montgomery Blair High School in Silver Spring hosted the June 23 rally, but at a cost: more than $4,000 to rent 17 school buses and about $3,000 more for use of the auditorium, according to school officials.
Tart letter of complaint
The school system billed the two sponsors - the National Retirement Planning Coalition and the National Association for Variable Annuities.
County Council Vice President George Leventhal sent a tart letter asking the group to cough up the money.
"President Bush may think that deficit financing works just fine for the federal government. But in Montgomery County we have to pay our bills," Leventhal, D-at large, wrote in the letter.
About $5,000 to be paid
Deborah Tucker of the National Association for Variable Annuities said the organization disputed some items on the bill.
"We always pay our vendors," Tucker said, but the association will not pay a bill that includes overcharges.
The organization since has agreed to pay about $5,000 and is seeking an itemized bill to explain the additional costs, she said.
Tucker also accused the council of political grandstanding and "using this dispute for political purposes."
On Wednesday, Leventhal said he was pushing the matter after constituents complained that a public school played host to such a high-profile, private event.
The organizers of the event assured the press at the time that the school was not being asked to subsidize the President's visit. After all, sticking young people with the debt would go against everything that they are trying to do, right?
Riiiiight...
Really, a few thousand bucks seems like a bargain compared to the $851 billion that the leaders in the House of Representatives are proposing to add to the national debt with their plan to privatize Social Security.
posted by Hans Riemer at 6:39 PM
19 Comments:
$851 billion?
What ever happened to "$2 trillion", or was it "$5 trillion"? I lost count with the far left's inflated numbers on this. The liberal left trying to act like deficit hawks is like Osama bin Laden trying to act like a pro-western modernist.
Let us for a second assume that "privatization" (which it is not, but whatever floats your boat Hans) costs $851 billion. That really sucks.
But then, we look at the Congressional Budget Office and Social Security Administration's own numbers, and we learn that the shortfall actually crosses $5.1 trillion under the current system between now and 2042- and that's a low end estimate.
What do you propose to do about that Hans? Oh yeah, that's right, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! I don't know how many times I challenged you to present the positives of your plan to save Social security (if you have any such plan), and you were unable to answer. This challenge was issued 2 months ago. Instead, you engaged in a giant diatribe about how you hate the President's plan. That's great, but it still doesn't tell us how YOU would intend to solve the problem, and you still haven't pointed that out.
Until then, I'll stick with basic mathematics. $5.1 trillion > $851 billion. Thus, I'll go with the latter.
I really don't get people like you. You engage in smear after smear; in all honesty, this Bush High School appearance business has nothing to do with anything (and you inflated the actual situation, but that's another matter). But since you like to demagogue the crap out of everything and engage in giant smear campaigns (like you did with somehow getting Students for Saving Social Security banned from attending the College Democrats convention- how's THAT for tolerance!), you continue to engage in this behavior, while ignoring the real issue at hand.
Grow up. Seriously. There's a reason Rock the Vote is ineffective and lacks credibility, and it is because of posts like the one you just made. If you people had even a shred of bipartisanship or non-partisanship (like your organization CLAIMS to have but doesn't), I'd actually consider supporting you guys on a number of issues. But until that happens, Rock the Vote will get none of my support, because it is a cancer to the future of our generation.
And that, of course, can be proven by your "I don't need a plan, I'll just talk trash about the President's plan and keep a crappy system in place" strategy on Social Security. Good one, guy.
By the way, I vaguely recall you saying something about how Washington DC needs to stop raiding the trust fund to spend on other government programs.
Then, the Congressional GOP proposes a plan to do exactly that- by sending the surplus back to the people who pay for them- and what do you do? You somehow demagogue that too.
Way to shoot your own ideas in the foot, simply because a Republican happened to borrow it. Honestly, I don't think you even care about issues; you just exist to oppose anything your archenemy Republicans support. Hell, if some Republican changed his name to "Hans Reimer" one day, you'd probably make a post saying "HANS REIMER IS AN IDIOT" five minutes later.
QUOTE:
Really, a few thousand bucks seems like a bargain compared to the $851 billion that the leaders in the House of Representatives are proposing to add to the national debt with their plan to privatize Social Security
/QUOTE:
Again, not that I would defend the kind of private accounts that these people are proposing but what you're saying is complete b.s. They aren't borrowing any additional money, they're just taking money that congress would ordinarily piss away on prescription drugs for seniors and the iraq war and creating funds that would actually have real assets. If Crock the Vote presented an honest discussion about social security, this would be clear.
This site is a joke, have trouble finding a more one-sided, partisan viewpoint on SS. Why do I read this crap? It's like a train wreck, I just have to look.
Once again, the handful of angry privatizers who blame Rock the Vote for the fact that young people don't support privatization are on the attack. You guys are a dedicated tiny minority.
Well, they're right for blaming RTV, RTV has had a huge impact on this issue. There are millions of young people who now oppose privatization for every one hater who posts on this blog.
Pfft. While its easier to generate publicity when you're backed by arguably the largest lobbyist organization in the world, the AARP (a group devoted to old peoples' special interests not young peoples' BTW), that doesn't mean you're either popular or right.
But arguing by majority belies both your ignorance of the social security issue and your unwillingness to honestly discuss the issue.
Who then is part of the progressive movement if the youth for privatization is the minority? It is easy to follow along like sheep, but the only problem is the end of the path ends at the AARP headquarters. Most of the protestors in the pictures are old farts, and of course there are the usual hippies that don't even know what the hell they are banging on their drums for. They are still coming down off their acid trip from a couple nights before looking to grill some hotdogs and wander around the streets of a high school they dropped out of a year ago. Wow!!! What a protest.
This is a repost of part of my comments from the original post made by Hans after the rally:
----------
One other point, if those pictures were suppose to tell the story of 400 people protesting how come you guys kept shooting the same people over and over again? The picture in where you state 'Wow' seeing the 'mass' (I use that lightly) of people turn back down the street clearly proves your estimate to be a bit off. Does anyone have the enrollment number of MBHS? Based on those photos Hans it appears only a small portion of the school rallied while joined by local chapters of NOW and the AARP... hardly two organizations that pride themselves on supporting young people (NOW maybe, if they hadn't become so extreme lately).
Ok, I found the answer to enrollment at Blair:
"... the current enrollment at Blair is 44 students short of the projected enrollment of 3,350 students..."
So what, less than 10% of the students rallied? Less than that if you figure the number of non-students at the rally? I think you blew this rally a bit out of proportion Hans.
For those who want the article I got that enrollment stat from:
PTSA takes on Blair overcrowding issue
Oh, and here is a better article on the protest from the school paper online that outlines the real reason many of those who protested showed up to the rally:
Protesters rally outside of Blair during speech
------------
For reference, you can view the post and the relevant comments here:
Students shut out of Social Security event with Pres. Bush at their own high school
------------
As for the topic of the school system being ripped off, I seriously doubt the students at the high school pay property taxes and therefore are not the one's being stuck with the bill, however a debt needs to be paid, and I think the school district needs to make the bill public so we know exactly how much this PUBLIC school charged for the event so we can judge for ourselves if the President's sponsors have a valid argument when they suggest overcharges.
Until that happens this is a non-issue, and that rally was a bust.
"They aren't borrowing any additional money, they're just taking money that congress would ordinarily piss away on prescription drugs for seniors and the iraq war and creating funds that would actually have real assets."
Dude, drugs and war material are real assets.
QUOTE:
"They aren't borrowing any additional money, they're just taking money that congress would ordinarily piss away on prescription drugs for seniors and the iraq war and creating funds that would actually have real assets."
Dude, drugs and war material are real assets.
/QUOTE:
You're such a moron. All the drugs in the prescription drug program get consumed. It's not like the elderly will be collecting prescription drugs in their basements like commemorative plates or something. War materials are generally either blown up or are really hard to sell aftermarket, notwithstanding my desire for an abrams tank. :-)
"All the drugs in the prescription drug program get consumed."
The point of things is to use them. Drugs get used to make us healthy.
The difference between (used prescription drugs and war materials) and (real assets) is that the latter can be sold later to fund someone's retirement. This is why what the govt is currently doing with extra payroll taxes is so horrible which was my point. I don't see how I can make it any clearer for you. Maybe this site on social security would help.
Two questions:
1) Is this a case of the govt. monopoly High School trying to rip off an outside event? We should wait until the itemized bills come in before passing judgemetn.
2) How many Blair students enjoyed having the day off?
Key Democrats Supported Social Security Accounts in 2001
The Hyde Park Declaration set goal for creation by 2010.
DLC | Key Document | August 1, 2000
The Hyde Park Declaration: A Statement of Principles and a Policy Agenda for the 21st Century
Full Document : http://www.ndol.org/print.cfm?contentid=1926
We believe in shifting the focus of America's anti-poverty and social insurance programs from transferring wealth to creating wealth.
5. Balance America's Commitments to the Young and the Old
An ever-growing share of the federal budget today consists of automatic transfers from working Americans to retirees. Moreover, the costs of the big entitlements for the elderly -- Social Security and Medicare -- are growing at rates that will eventually bankrupt them and that could leave little to pay for everything else government does. We can't just spend our way out of the problem; we must find a way to contain future costs. The federal government already spends seven times as much on the elderly as it does on children. To allow that ratio to grow even more imbalanced would be grossly unfair to today's workers and future generations.
In addition, Social Security and Medicare need to be modernized to reflect conditions not envisioned when they were created in the 1930s and the 1960s. Social Security, for example, needs a stronger basic benefit to bolster its critical role in reducing poverty in old age. Medicare needs to offer retirees more choices and a modern benefit package that includes prescription drugs. Such changes, however, will only add to the cost of the programs unless they are accompanied by structural reforms that restrain their growth and limit their claim on the working families whose taxes support the programs.
Goals for 2010
• Honor our commitment to seniors by ensuring the future solvency of Social Security and Medicare.
• Make structural reforms in Social Security and Medicare that slow their future cost growth, modernize benefits (including a prescription drug benefit for Medicare), and give beneficiaries more choice and control over their retirement and health security.
• Create Retirement Savings Accounts to enable low-income Americans to save for their own retirement.
Signatories include:
Evan Bayh, United States Senator, Indiana
John Breaux, United States Senator, Louisiana
Lee Brown, Mayor, Houston, Texas
Bob Buckhorn, City Councilman, Tampa, Fla.
Tom Burroughs, State Representative, Kansas
Kevin Cahill, State Assemblyman, New York
Ken Cheuvront, State Representative, Arizona
Michael Coleman, Mayor, Columbus, Ohio
Pat Colwell, State Representative, Maine
Kathleen Connell, State Controller, California
Marti Crow, State Representative, Kansas
Donald T. Cunningham Jr., Mayor, Bethlehem, Pa.
Wayne Curry, County Executive, Prince George's County, Md.
Jim Davis, United States Representative, Florida
Dan DeMarco, Commissioner of Ross Township, Pennsylvania
Dana Lee Dembrow, State Delegate, Maryland
Calvin Dooley, United States Representative, California
Douglas M. Duncan, County Executive, Montgomery County, Md.
John A. Fritchey, State Representative, Illinois
Jeff Gombosky, State Representative, Washington
Ron Gonzales, Mayor, San Jose, California
James S. Gregory, City Councilman, Bethlehem, Pa.
Daniel Grossman, State Representative, Colorado
Lars A. Hafner, State House Democratic Caucus Chairman, Florida
Bob Hagedorn, State Representative, Colorado
Karen Hale, State Senator, Utah
Robert Henriquez, State Representative, Florida
Scott N. Howell, State Senate Democratic Leader, Utah
Sam Hoyt, State Assemblyman, New York
Calvin Johnson, State Representative, Arkansas
Paula F. Julander, State Senate Minority Whip, Utah
Ember Reichgott Junge, State Senate Assistant Majority Leader, Minnesota
Delores G. Kelley, State Senator, Maryland
John F. Kerry, United States Senator, Massachusetts
Kwame Kilpatrick, State Representative, Michigan
Mary Landrieu, United States Senator, Louisiana
Thomas Lazieh, City Councilman, Central Falls, R.I.
Joseph Lieberman, United States Senator, Connecticut
Blanche Lambert Lincoln, United States Senator, Arkansas
Duane E. Little, Assessor, Shoshone County, Idaho
Dannel P. Malloy, Mayor, Stamford, Conn.
Jennifer Mann, State Representative, Pennsylvania
Jack Markell, State Treasurer, Delaware
Stan Matsunaka, State Senator, Colorado
Jonathan Miller, State Treasurer, Kentucky
Tom Miller, State Attorney General, Iowa
Bobby Moak, State Representative, Mississippi
James P. Moran Jr., United States Representative, Virginia
Eva Moskowitz, City Council Member, New York
Ed Murray, State Representative, Washington
Janet Napolitano, Attorney General, Arizona
Martin O'Malley, Mayor, Baltimore, Md.
Marc R. Pacheco, State Senator, Massachusetts
John D. Porcari, State Secretary of Transportation, Maryland
David Quall, State Representative, Washington
Joe Rice, Mayor, Glendale, Colo.
John Riggs IV, State Senator, Arkansas
Antonio R. Riley, State Representative, Wisconsin
Stacy Ritter, State Representative, Florida
Charles Robb, United States Senator, Virginia
Carroll G. Robinson, City Councilman, Houston, Texas
Tim Roemer, United States Representative, Indiana
Linda J. Scheid, State Senator, Minnesota
Allyson Schwartz, State Senator, Pennsylvania
Kathleen Sebelius, State Insurance Commissioner, Kansas
Eleanor Sobel, State Representative, Florida
Ellen O. Tauscher, United States Representative, California
Michael L. Thurmond, State Labor Commissioner, Georgia
Tom Vilsack, Governor, Iowa
Kirk Watson, Mayor, Austin, Texas
J.D. Williams, State Controller, Idaho
Philip Wise, State Representative, Iowa
Jane Wood, State Representative, New Hampshire
"The difference between (used prescription drugs and war materials) and (real assets) is that the latter can be sold later to fund someone's retirement."
Drugs can be sold, or they can be used to buy more health or life span Real assets can be sold to buy drugs.
Don't pretend that money spent on drugs is frittered away.
QUOTE:
"The difference between (used prescription drugs and war materials) and (real assets) is that the latter can be sold later to fund someone's retirement."
Drugs can be sold, or they can be used to buy more health or life span Real assets can be sold to buy drugs.
Don't pretend that money spent on drugs is frittered away.
/QUOTE:
You are just too stupid to live. Feel free to have the last word because I don't believe that the stupidity you've demonstrated could possibly be honest and I'm not going to argue with someone being willfully ignorant.
This is a letter of resignation from a former member to the AARP.
July 15, 2005
Mr. William D. Novelli
Executive Director
3200 East Carson Street,
Lakewood, California 90712
Dear Mr. Novelli:
Recently, I received your memo that informed me this was my final notice. Then you stated perhaps I had overlooked my recent letters reminding me to renew my AARP membership.
If you will check your records, you will see that I have been an AARP member since I was old enough. I am now 61 and nearing the time to draw social security, however due to your position on President Bush’s social security reform promoting private accounts, I cannot renew my membership. Had the private account opportunity been available when I started to work in 1964, I would be a rich woman today not to mention if I didn’t spend all the money, my heirs would inherit the remainder. Granted there must be a lock on these accounts so individuals cannot spend this money until retirement and there must be a policing of the employers to make sure this money is paid into the accounts and there must also be a government guarantee to cover the monies that bankrupt companies do not pay in that has been withheld from employees. This guarantee would be no different than the current policy because even though my employer does not pay his payroll taxes, it does not jeopardize the amount that I will be paid as social security benefits.
I urge you to stop scaring senior citizens with your propaganda about their not continuing to receive social security benefits and in addition to make sure that you let ALL citizens know the private accounts are strictly voluntary NOT mandatory.
Sincerely,
Peggy S. Boose
Boonville, NC
I just don't understand how the gov. can spend that much money in just one month!
A trillion- wow!
Post a Comment
<< Home