Letter to the Editor, Political Rant, Ponzi Schemes, etc.

I sent a letter to the editor of the Mail Tribune and it was published last night.

I do not like politics, politicians or most anything political and yet I feel it is my duty to try to stay somewhat informed - and I always vote - mostly to maintain my bitching rights, because I feel you really cannot bitch if you did not even bother to cast a vote.

That all being said, here is my letter, which had to be submitted twice because my first letter exceeded the 200 word limit.

“$800 million tax increase needed to make up for revenue shortfalls”. What is not said is that there was a proposed alternate that would NOT require a tax increase. The Back to Basics Budget Plan (http://www.leg.state.or.us/senaterepublicans/budget_brief.pdf) was based upon the 2007-09 budget. Two types of additional funds were included : $941 million in federal stimulus money and $436 million in Rainy Day Funds. It would also use $500 million from the ending balances of agencies that receive “Other Funds”. On June 30, 2009, those accounts are projected to have balances of more than $2.5 billion. The Back to Basics Budget would increase spending on education and fully fund the new Oregon State Police Troopers, phased in during 2007-09. It also increased spending on human services by more than $500 million to compensate for increased caseloads based on the economic downturn. The current leadership in the house refused to allow it on the floor for a vote. If we want good jobs, Oregon must become MORE friendly to business. When asked, I will sign a petition to bring this to a vote in November and I will remember who did and did NOT vote for these tax increases.

Now I am sure that were the republicans in charge of the Oregon legislature, they would not allow most of the democrats bills to come up for discussion either - but that is my exact point - it is time for most of the political BS to stop and to have open discussion and debate.

And when will legislators understand that if you spend $x in one budget period and you plan to spend $x+20% in the next budget period but instead you only budget for $x+10%, you did not really cut spending - you only reduced the increased spending. In our house, we have had to spend less this year. Period.

I recently attended the Western Roofing Expo in Reno. The keynote speaker was Mark Sanborn, author of the book The Fred Factor. I recently reviewed some of his blog and was particularly impressed with his blog dated February 26, 2009 -

"The American Dream has needed defending in the past against attackers from outside our borders. Today it is coming under attack from within. Some of the attackers are those we elected to protect it.

People from around the world have immigrated to America for the freedom to create and pursue opportunity. This morning a Canadian woman told CNN she moved here with the hope of getting rich. "Being rich isn’t bad. Money represents opportunity."

She’s right. The current commentary from Washington suggesting class oppression is wrong. Those who made money legally and ethically did nothing wrong; they took risks and worked hard. Those who made ill-gotten gains hurt everyone, the rich as well as the poor. Nobody is trying to protect them.

The rich are already taxed disproportionately. And today our President says they must be taxed more. My wish is that Washington would reread the story of the golden goose, because irresponsible and oppressive taxation and spending are about to kill it.

The rich are those who don’t chip in $25 for the expenses of their kid’s softball team; they buy the jerseys for the entire team. Wealthy people don’t contribute money to the church or synagogue building project; they underwrite the lion’s share of the cost.

"Not all rich people are so generous!" you say? True, but current legislation is aimed at America’s wealthiest, and that includes the generous as well as the stingy (and poor and middle class people can be generous or stingy too.)

Have no empathy? Then consider this: spending money that Washington doesn’t have mortgages your future and makes it harder for you to live and American dream by taking away the incentives of hard work and success and burdening the system that enables you to better your situation. Are you willing to trade short-term and uncertain security for long term opportunity? That is a choice being made for you by legislators right now.

The threat is two-fold: current thinking and action by our leaders wants to first further penalize the wealthy (the most productive sector of society) who have done nothing immoral or wrong and second create a tenuous safety net–not an opportunity–for those with limited means.

Don’t buy into the something-for-nothing talk coming out of Congress. Money comes from somewhere; in Washington it comes from your wallet or purse not just now but in the future. Congress wants to spend money you and I haven’t made, and money our kids will someday earn. That’s not hyperbole, but fact.The growth of the deficit is on a scale never before experienced much less contemplated.

As a trained economist, I assure you that even if there is some measure of success from the current stimulus package–and despite my disagreement with the means, like you I want to see it succeed–the price will be future inflation that will be economically crippling.

Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, rich, poor and middle class, we are all the beneficiaries of the American Dream. When it is diminished so are our opportunities, both now and in the future. To keep it healthy, we must focus on creating opportunities for all, not taking the easy and expedient route of spending money we don’t have."

It is time to begin to really fix some of the problems in our economy and in this country - and to find ways to do it that do not involve mortgaging our children's future.

Bernie Madoff and Alan Stanford have made lots of headlines recently for running Ponzi schemes - however the biggest Ponzi scheme in history is being perpetrated by the American government - it is called Social Security. Now it is not quite a Ponzi scheme - because the definition generally states it is an illegal investment scheme where "early investors are paid off from funds raised from later ones". Presently it is predicted that Social Security will be bankrupt by 2042. One would hope that a solution can be found within the next 33 years, but lawmakers have known this was coming since I was in high school and I graduated 29 years ago.

I would feel a little less weary about Social Securities impending problems, and save for my own retirement - but where? All of rules we were taught about stocks and bonds are now being rewritten and I cannot figure out who it right and who it wrong. That being said, today I invested in a Bear Fund. So for now I am trying to be a happy person with a bearish investment policy. We'll see how that goes....