Tuesday, February 22, 2005
Social Security - Young Democrats of Adams County Response
After careful consideration of President Bush’s State of the Union address and his subsequent speeches on the matter, I humbly submit a response from the Democratic youth who may someday come to rely upon the program he, and other anti-Social Security Republicans like Senator Santorum, threaten with these dangerous changes.
First off, I actually agree with Senator Santorum, who said about one of the President’s speeches, "I think it was an attempt to reassure younger as well as older workers that his plan was safe."
The President's words, in fact, serve as no reassurance to this younger worker. The Republican leadership is counting on younger workers not to listen to everything being said, and to only hear the false, but attractive, "keep your own money" mantra.
The initial concern among many of us critics was that those who gained in our investments by our retirement would end up needing to support those who lost in their investments, and that only those involved in the investment process - the traders, the funds, etc., would surely win.
However, now that the Bush plan has been unvieled, it is now known that we will not get to do what we wish with our money, as implied, as investments will be limited to government restricted and approved bonds and stocks.
This is simply the government taking the money they would currently pay to beneficiaries and placing it into a select group of investments (Hopefully the government does not approve Enron, Halliburton, Arbusto, War Bonds or the Money Market).
In either case, the social contract of Social Security - to provide a safety net against senior citizen poverty by having the gainfully employed paying the benefits for today's retiree's - with the promise that their children will do the same when they retire - will be broken. It is not, and never has been intended as, an investment program for retirement.
While many retirees may very well enjoy working part time, at WalMart or in fast food dining rooms, many do so to avoid the choice between prescription drugs, food or independent living.
Placing money into seperate accounts will "starve the beast" as those who are against Social Security call it, and make some money for fund managers on the side (despite the assurances to the contrary).
It is so immoral for President Bush to propose such a flawed and dangerous expansion in the complexities and costs of withholding that introducing such sillyness has cause people in his own party to be, "struck with fear".
A Better Plan:
Use any surplus of Social Security funds to pay off the national debt, as former Vice President Gore once proposed. Doing so grows the "lockbox" that is the Social Security. This secures the combined savings power without the risk of a higher burden on the younger generations from the obligations to those not so fortunate in their investments.
We should continue paying Social Security payments out of the current fund, and commit to the program while implementing the necessary changes to keep Social Security solvent. Among possible changes are raising the annual contribution limit (adjusted for inflation) and adjusting the scale of benefits based on current income.
Finally, we need to return to overall fiscal discipline and balanced budgets so that we can pay off our national debts, including the Social Security bonds when they come due.
----------------
Councilman Herb Riede
President
Young Democrats of Adams County
http://www.youngadamsdemocrats.com/
http://www.herbriede.com/
http://www.mcsherrystown.net/
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
Unionize WalMart
UFCW Talking to Wal-Mart Workers
I support the Democratic Party taking up the national effort to Unionize WalMart workers as described in the link above.
I support the Democratic Party taking up the national effort to Unionize WalMart workers as described in the link above.
Friday, February 11, 2005
My Blog will be very active... Just not here...
Herb's Al Gore '08 Blog - I will be posting live from DC special and exclusive to AlGore-08.com over the weekend from the DNC and YDA events.
mcall.com - Siptroth wins special election for 189th District state House seat
A Smithfield Township supervisor defeated a business owner by 209 votes in a special election Tuesday to fill the vacant 189th District state House seat.
According to unofficial results, Democrat John J. Siptroth received 3,452 votes, or 51 percent, and Republican Diane L. Hannan got 3,243 votes, or 48 percent.
About 6,695 votes were tabulated in the district, which includes parts of Monroe and Pike counties.
The seat became vacant when Kelly Lewis resigned Dec. 6 to head the nonprofit Technology Council of Central Pennsylvania.
Also see:
http://www.pahdcc.com
http://www.votesiptroth.com
This is an upset pickup of a formerly Republican state house seat in Pennsylvania.
Congratulations John!
Wednesday, February 09, 2005
mcall.com - Siptroth wins special election for 189th District state House seat
mcall.com - Siptroth wins special election for 189th District state House seat
A Smithfield Township supervisor defeated a business owner by 209 votes in a special election Tuesday to fill the vacant 189th District state House seat.
According to unofficial results, Democrat John J. Siptroth received 3,452 votes, or 51 percent, and Republican Diane L. Hannan got 3,243 votes, or 48 percent.
About 6,695 votes were tabulated in the district, which includes parts of Monroe and Pike counties.
The seat became vacant when Kelly Lewis resigned Dec. 6 to head the nonprofit Technology Council of Central Pennsylvania.
Also see:
http://www.pahdcc.com
http://www.votesiptroth.com
This is an upset pickup of a formerly Republican state house seat in Pennsylvania.
Congratulations John!
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
McS'town looks at rental unit inspections
McS'town looks at rental unit inspections
I viewed photos passed among council showing the mold infestation mentioned at the link above during the meeting, prompting my comments.
I vowed to look into what is possible for McSherrystown and here is an example of what Chambersburg has gone through with their regular rental unit inspections:
Meeting Minutes, Chambersburg Borough 1/16/2002:
http://www.borough.chambersburg.pa.us/minutes/2002/january_16__2002_meeting_minutes.html
And the resulting Chambersburg Borough Rental Unit Inspection Ordinance:
http://gcp.esub.net/cgi-bin/om_isapi.dll?clientID=182555&depth=3&hitsperheading=on&infobase=chambers.nfo&record={1FF578E}&softpage=Document42
What was left out of the Evening Sun article was that council quickly came to a general consensus that any proposed inspections would be on tenant turnover - that is, when someone moves out, the unit would need inspected between tenants.
This was thought to minimize the frequency, however even this as a rule could be faulty and cause too high a frequency in specific cases - such as tenants who leave after a month or two.
So thinking about it, as far as a remedy for the year to year problem, which was the "tenant turnover" intent, I'd propose:
"Rental Units are to be inspected before being made available for a new tenant unless said unit has passed it's previous inspection within the past (time period)"
There is, of course, the "inspection upon complaint" trigger as well.
What the inspection would entail, how much the inspection would cost and to who(m?) are further details...
On who pays, the Sun printed that I want to charge inspection fees to the landlords in the business of rental properties, and this is true.
I would not want the borough general fund to profit from the inspection fees, however at the same time, I do not want the general borough homeowner population to have to contribute significantly towards the inspections, as while they do benefit from the overall benefit to the community, the majority of the cost should be placed upon those who benefit - the renters, like myself. To reach the renters, you must charge the landlord, who will pass the cost on. If you take the cost of the proposed inspections and the expected frequency, I would expect it to amount to cents per month per unit.
To those who may say, "If the borough wants inspections, they should pay for them," remember, you are saying that it should come from the general fund, which is funded by property taxes, income taxes, and the emergency and municipal services tax, which we did not raise.
In closing, I believe the inspections will serve to protect the health and integrity of our growing urban community, as more and more buildings in the Borough are being converted to rental units, and others occasionally change hands.
I viewed photos passed among council showing the mold infestation mentioned at the link above during the meeting, prompting my comments.
I vowed to look into what is possible for McSherrystown and here is an example of what Chambersburg has gone through with their regular rental unit inspections:
Meeting Minutes, Chambersburg Borough 1/16/2002:
http://www.borough.chambersburg.pa.us/minutes/2002/january_16__2002_meeting_minutes.html
And the resulting Chambersburg Borough Rental Unit Inspection Ordinance:
http://gcp.esub.net/cgi-bin/om_isapi.dll?clientID=182555&depth=3&hitsperheading=on&infobase=chambers.nfo&record={1FF578E}&softpage=Document42
What was left out of the Evening Sun article was that council quickly came to a general consensus that any proposed inspections would be on tenant turnover - that is, when someone moves out, the unit would need inspected between tenants.
This was thought to minimize the frequency, however even this as a rule could be faulty and cause too high a frequency in specific cases - such as tenants who leave after a month or two.
So thinking about it, as far as a remedy for the year to year problem, which was the "tenant turnover" intent, I'd propose:
"Rental Units are to be inspected before being made available for a new tenant unless said unit has passed it's previous inspection within the past (time period)"
There is, of course, the "inspection upon complaint" trigger as well.
What the inspection would entail, how much the inspection would cost and to who(m?) are further details...
On who pays, the Sun printed that I want to charge inspection fees to the landlords in the business of rental properties, and this is true.
I would not want the borough general fund to profit from the inspection fees, however at the same time, I do not want the general borough homeowner population to have to contribute significantly towards the inspections, as while they do benefit from the overall benefit to the community, the majority of the cost should be placed upon those who benefit - the renters, like myself. To reach the renters, you must charge the landlord, who will pass the cost on. If you take the cost of the proposed inspections and the expected frequency, I would expect it to amount to cents per month per unit.
To those who may say, "If the borough wants inspections, they should pay for them," remember, you are saying that it should come from the general fund, which is funded by property taxes, income taxes, and the emergency and municipal services tax, which we did not raise.
In closing, I believe the inspections will serve to protect the health and integrity of our growing urban community, as more and more buildings in the Borough are being converted to rental units, and others occasionally change hands.
Wasting No Time, Republicans propose raising Sales Taxes, Income Taxes
House Bill 25 would replace Property Taxes with a 3% increase in Sales Taxes and a 1.5% increase in Income Taxes.
Sales and Income taxes are collected by the state, and sure enough, just like the Business Gross Receipts Tax Scam, this bill is nothing but a monkey wrench just waiting to be thrown into the system.
"Distributions to school districts shall be based on the amount of real property tax collected by each school district during the base year..."
So what's a base year?
"Base year." The first fiscal year of a school district, municipality or county beginning after June 30, 2005.
So the calculations of the share of state money will depend on the snapshot of where your school district is at - THIS YEAR. If it's growing, too bad. If it's shrinking, more power to ya!
This bill is incomplete compared to the Gross Receipts bill in it's detail - but basically is the same as last year's bill only in your face and on your bill.
They did eliminate the rhetoric-filled criticisms about the Gross Receipts bill - that it taxed food, school tuition, the bible, you name it. But this bill is little better.
The big questions are:
OK, so by now you get that I don't like this bill - so what's MY idea, right?
Thanks for asking!
The same idea I will say over and over.
I agree in principle with shifting the property tax burden off our senior citizens and all homeowners onto either an increase of our income tax or if necessary, the sales tax.
But I would only propose eliminating property taxes on actual, single primary residences (100% homestead exemption). Perhaps property tax reduction for businesses, but not to the detriment of shifting taxes paid by businesses to individuals.
Sales and Income taxes are collected by the state, and sure enough, just like the Business Gross Receipts Tax Scam, this bill is nothing but a monkey wrench just waiting to be thrown into the system.
"Distributions to school districts shall be based on the amount of real property tax collected by each school district during the base year..."
So what's a base year?
"Base year." The first fiscal year of a school district, municipality or county beginning after June 30, 2005.
So the calculations of the share of state money will depend on the snapshot of where your school district is at - THIS YEAR. If it's growing, too bad. If it's shrinking, more power to ya!
This bill is incomplete compared to the Gross Receipts bill in it's detail - but basically is the same as last year's bill only in your face and on your bill.
They did eliminate the rhetoric-filled criticisms about the Gross Receipts bill - that it taxed food, school tuition, the bible, you name it. But this bill is little better.
The big questions are:
- Who pays sales tax, where the biggest increase of 3% occurs?
It's NOT businesses, as many of their purchases are sales tax free except for what they consume - anything purchased for resale - to the consumer (that's you) isn't taxed.
- OK, so who saves THE MOST from the complete elimination of property taxes?
It's NOT you! Businesses - the people who find those handy loopholes to AVOID paying income taxes and pay little sales and use taxes will not have to pay any property tax on THEIR STORES, THEIR MALLS, THEIR WAL-MARTS...
OK, so by now you get that I don't like this bill - so what's MY idea, right?
Thanks for asking!
The same idea I will say over and over.
I agree in principle with shifting the property tax burden off our senior citizens and all homeowners onto either an increase of our income tax or if necessary, the sales tax.
But I would only propose eliminating property taxes on actual, single primary residences (100% homestead exemption). Perhaps property tax reduction for businesses, but not to the detriment of shifting taxes paid by businesses to individuals.
