Afarensis is a 3.5-2.8 million year old hominin from the Kada Hadar member of the Hadar formation in the Middle Awash, Ethiopia. He is approximately 41 inches tall, weighs approximately 60 pounds and has a cranial capacity of a whopping 410 cc (approximately). Afarensis is currently considered to be transitional between apes and humans and displays some traits of both. Since he spends a lot of time on the couch watching monster movies, some observers question whether he is an obligate biped (although no one has observed him climbing a tree). He also has a blog called 
According to this news story from Newsweek Bush is trying to sneak social security privitization into the budget:
Last year, even though Bush talked endlessly about the supposed joys of private accounts, he never proposed a specific plan to Congress and never put privatization costs in the budget. But this year, with no fanfare whatsoever, Bush stuck a big Social Security privatization plan in the federal budget proposal, which he sent to Congress on Monday.His plan would let people set up private accounts starting in 2010 and would divert more than $700 billion of Social Security tax revenues to pay for them over the first seven years.
*snip*
Then he seemed to be kicking the Social Security problem a few years down the road in typical Washington fashion when he asked Congress "to join me in creating a commission to examine the full impact of baby-boom retirements on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid," adding that the commission would be bipartisan "and offer bipartisan solutions." But anyone who thought that Bush would wait for bipartisanship to deal with Social Security was wrong. Instead, he stuck his own privatization proposals into his proposed budget.
*snip*
Unlike Bush's generalized privatization talk of last year, we're now talking detailed numbers. On page 321 of the budget proposal, you see the privatization costs: $24.182 billion in fiscal 2010, $57.429 billion in fiscal 2011 and another $630.533 billion for the five years after that, for a seven-year total of $712.144 billion.
So really the plan seems to be to bury it in one of those massive omnibus bills that nobody reads and have more of those sneaky extend the vote sessions to get it passed. I guess the fact that a majority of United States citizens was against these ideas for social security "reform" means nothing...
Comments
what you mean is that a majority of people who are more or less close to retirement age are against it.
SS is equivalent to mom and dad looking at me and not suggesting, not hoping, not implying but demanding they have a *RIGHT* to be clothed and fed by me in their later age.
Only instead of being mom and dad, it's people I don't even know.
Posted by: IndianCowboy
|
February 8, 2006 11:37 PM
Gee, and here I thought it was more like you pay into a fund for your entire working life, and then you receive money back from the fund after you stop working.
Silly me.
Posted by: shargash
|
February 8, 2006 11:44 PM
Give IndianCowboy a break - he's only 22. He has a lot of learning and growing up to do. Reading his blog makes it clear... he's got a quality brain in his head, but like a lot of young people he thinks he knows and understands more than he really does.
I thought the same way when I was 22.
Posted by: ccc | February 9, 2006 12:30 AM
shargash, would be nice if it really worked that way wouldn't it. Instead your paycheck pays for the CURRENT oldsters' SS checks.
ccc, would be nice if you attacked me on the particulars instead of on my age. Yeah, I'm 22, but I've gotten around just a little bit and seen just a bit more than you might expect.
I'm guessing nobel laureate FA Hayek, who held a similar view, or any number of classical liberals much older than me and much more experience than me who hold the same position I do also have a lot of growing up to do, huh?
I'm not saying that a safety net for old people is a bad idea, I'm saying our current system is BROKEN. And anyone who thinks it isn't...needs to do some reading. Current tax payers pay the benefits of people on current SS rolls. Which worked fine in the 30s, but like most of FDR's policies was more kneejerk than thoughtful.
our retired cohort is living longer (not a bad thing), and there are more of them at EVERY age over 65 then there were 5, 10, or 20 years ago, let alone 70. So you've got a lot more recipients dependent on relatively fewer funding individuals.
Posted by: IndianCowboy
|
February 9, 2006 2:28 AM
shargash, would be nice if it really worked that way wouldn't it. Instead your paycheck pays for the CURRENT oldsters' SS checks.
And the current lot of oldsters' cheques went to the previous lot of oldsters in their retirement. And if social security isn't abolished then the next generation of kids will see their cheques go to you. This saves the government having to hang onto large amounts of cash until people grow old enough to need it - we all know that never ends well.
This is not exactly rocket science. Do you or do you not want to be supported when you're too old to work? If the answer is "I do", then the price you pay for that is supporting the current lot of oldsters when they're too old to work.
Posted by: Corkscrew | February 9, 2006 5:00 AM
thanks for ignoring the rest of the comment about the sheer demographic and practical problems.
And the answer to whether I want to be supported in my old age or not? Not if it requires government intervention.
Posted by: IndianCowboy
|
February 9, 2006 6:36 AM
Posted by: afarensis | February 9, 2006 8:01 AM
Actually, if it worked the way it's supposed to work, current workers would not need to supplement SS payments to current retirees. But I suppose it's OK to let the old people take care of themselves. After all, the eksimos reportedly put them out to die in the cold when they couldn't pull their weight. I think the Bush administration's current plan to pay for more military spending by taking away programs that help poor, old people is a good idea, too, don't you? After all, they're old and I don't know them.
Posted by: Mark Paris
|
February 9, 2006 8:48 AM
indiancowboy - I wish I could have the taxes back that funded development of the medical science which contributed to the fact you are alive today.
I am willing to bet if you were living during the Great Depression, you would have been grateful for some of FDR's policies.
afarensis has it right - where are all the surplus SS funds collected during the baby boomer lifetimes? To blame FDR for 60+ years of government waste just isn't logical, in fact, one could describe it as a knee-jerk reaction.
Posted by: deb | February 9, 2006 1:54 PM
Wow. Someone has the temerity to say "I'm not saying that a safety net for old people is a bad idea, I'm saying our current system is BROKEN" and people here wish him dead.
Charming.
Remind me what a slavering defense of pay-as-you-go Social Security has to do with anthropology, evolution, or science?
Posted by: Eric the .5b
|
February 9, 2006 2:27 PM
Eric - You are exagerating just a bit. No one wished death on IndianCowboy. Where is it written that I have to stick to anthropology, evolution or science (though I could legitimately argue that this falls under cultural anthro - this strikes me as a good example of structural violence)?
Posted by: afarensis | February 9, 2006 2:41 PM
Certainly not wishing death on IndianCowboy or anyone else.
SS supports many people in many ways. Bush's private retirement account system doesn't go very far in addressing that fact. I am attempting to draw a parallel to tax funded medical research; which all of us have doubtless benefited from.
Perhaps many of the bloggers here would be out of work were it not for tax generated funding. I don't see a problem with that support. Who but taxpayers (collectively) can afford to lose money on projects that just never go anywhere or produce a benefit? But those outcomes are a requirement for science to function as it should.
This is not a 'slathering?' defense of SS. It is way broken. That may be of little concern to those who have the years to make adjustments in their retirement planning. I can certainly understand the desire to just take your 7% and do the best you can with it. That is not the case for older people. They fear that Bush and friends will begin a process that guts the system well before their reliance on it has ended. If you read the history of the Bush family, George is a third generation FDR hater.
IndianCowboy took a cheap shot at FDR - the poor guy can't even defend himself. To me, FDR initiated a new direction of government that made sense then and makes more sense now. What individual or State has the leverage to keep multi-nationals operating within civilized parameters? Would you like to take on Monsanto or Dow or Exxon by yourself? That is a function only the federal government can fulfill - and only a big one at that. To blindly label 'big' government as a bad and evil thing is just not realistic.
Why are bloggers on this site so excited about Bush? I think it is because we are sure he has reneged on the social contract begun back in FDR's time. If the federal government were inconsequential, who would care what Bush does or does not do?
The category is 'Politics'. I didn't come prepared with a clever way to link my comments to science, anthropology or evolution.
Posted by: deb | February 9, 2006 4:44 PM
FDR redefined freedom, and he redefined the purpose of government. From a minimalist approach to an interventionist approach. That's fine with the majority of you because you think of freedom and government the same way he did and not like our founding fathers did. I happen to like the purpose and intent of our consitution, you guys don't. So shoot me.
I also believe that the more money government has, the more power it has, and the more controlling and oppressive it *can be*.
FDR's Social Security from its inception was working people paying for retired people. It needed to be done back then. There were old people eating dog food. Of course they didn't pay for themselves, the young did. That system does not need to be in place today. I am not defending Bush's policies, I refused to vote for him in 2k4, and there's a 99% chance i'll throw my vote away on an independent candidate again in 2k8. What i'm saying is that we need to transition off the pay-as-you-go system rather than defend it mindlessly. Instead of saying "you old-people hating bastard Mr. Bush" it would be nice to see Democrat leaders acknowledge that SS isn't a self-sustaining systme and needs to be turned into one, then debate how to do it.
A slow phase out of pay as you go and a slow phase-in of 'pay for yourself'. What I envision is something more like Unemployment Insurance. In which teh deduction from your paycheck will go to YOU if you're between jobs. For obvious reasons, we can't just flip a switch and turn over to such a system right now, but there is no reason that we can't transition to one within 20 years.
Posted by: IndianCowboy
|
February 9, 2006 8:38 PM
I am right with on the independents! I am really getting sick of the whole Dem-Rep thing. But, you raise some good issues.
The strict interpretation of the constitution (whatever that really means) is a whole other topic that I find interesting. Conservatives are busy planting the idea of 'legislation from the bench' all over the place. This is in reality a code word for pro-life and marriage stances they hold dear. The courts are intervening in our lives in ways the constitution never intended - by their arguments. I am not qualified to say much about the validity of their argument except to say I don't trust them.
If we were to be really strict, I suppose there are many facets of modern life having no basis in the constitution. It might be similar to two religious sects argueing over the meaning of bible passages. And, it would be just as productive.
To think our framers could foresee all that needed to be seen over 200 years ago is a stretch in my mind. Even given 20 or 30 amendments, the document is fascinating, but I think it's fair to say it cannot be considered an all-inclusive guide that is infallible for all time.
I don't think interventionist government began with FDR. Washington ordered out federal troops in overwhelming numbers to quell the Whiskey Rebellion shortly after the revolutionary war. Distillers were refusing to pay the whiskey tax levied to pay off the debts incurred by the revolution. Between Washington and FDR there were all sorts of interventionist actions. We bought, bartered and stole our way into a continent spanning country. I don't recall anything in the constitution that would support many of those actions. FDR certainly did expand the concept on the homefront.
It's not the amount of money the government has, (it's our money, right?) it's how citizens direct and control the use of 'our' money that really matters. I believe this is where the discussion about SS belongs - not in the constitution.
I don't believe the history of our country supports a hands off approach by the federal government. The federal government was certainly not keeping it's hands off when federal troops shot striking miners and pullman workers.
On the other side of the coin, the very event that eventually brought FDR into office was caused by a total lack of market rules and regulations - the 1929 crash.
I can't believe you would rather return to those extremes. You could work your entire life and lose everything overnight as people did back then when banks failed. Or you could be shot for demanding and fighting for a living wage.
Well, that stuff was back then as you say. What I am worried about is we are headed back there.
The entire issue of retirement funding, not just SS, really needs to have our attention. As does health care. I would guess at least 50% of our population is not, and never will be, in a financial position to adequately prepare for retirement and health care. They simply don't have the income. Stats show they are less and less likely to be able to afford it in the future.
However, those same people played an important part in generating wealth for somebody. Working people make the accumulation of wealth possible for others in many cases. From Bill Gates to your local Subway franchisee, they didn't do it alone.
So, IndianCowboy, what do we as a society 'owe' these people? From a more mercenary position, what is in our best interests to 'give' to them? As a society, we refuse or fail to provide them living wages, let alone savable wages.
Solve the wage problem and you will solve the retirement and healthcare problems at the same time. And they will be free market solutions of the type you admire.
Posted by: deb | February 9, 2006 11:07 PM
I think the statement that we don't value the intent and purpose of the constitution is a bit of an overreach. I, personally value the constitution so much that I post it on July 4th and have read it more times than I can count. I do think the federal government is a good thing and am not afraid of it's power. It is much easier to sway than state governments are (the civil rights situation didn't start to change until the feds got involved). Like it or not, there are certain issues that only the federal government can handle. Don't kid yourself, even if conservatives had their way and eliminated all the programs you don't like, there would still be the most powerful military in the world to enforce their will so the balance of power between you and them would remain unchanged. The NSA would still be able to spy on you if they wanted. For all the talk of the oppresive federal government they barely affect me or my life. What does affect my life is, for example, one of the high schools here in St. Louis has decided on mandatory drug testing of all it's students - which strikes me as a gross invasion of privacy that a school shouldn't be allowed to engage in. A fellow ScienceBlogger had a post up the other day about a school monitoring students' blogs and calling parents when they didn't like the content, which really wasn't any of the schools business. Note, neither of these two examples came from the federal government.
As for the rest, I don't make enough money for your idea to really do anything for me. Basically, on this issue, I think we can get a lot farther if we pool our resources...
Posted by: afarensis | February 9, 2006 11:14 PM
afarensis - I was so glad when my kids got out of high school. I feel your pain. It's always something. I think in most states, schools are not held to the same standards of 'search and seizure' as the police are. That was the case in Ohio anyways. I have never known why that is.
The drug testing is abhorent in the extreme. It's bad enough for adults seeking employment. The whole thing may as well be prison intake processing. And what does it really teach our kids?
Do you ever think school is NOT where your childs spirit is going to soar like an eagle? Not all bad certainly, but there are days ....
Posted by: deb | February 10, 2006 12:03 AM
Afarensis, deb, I'm sure we agree on a lot more than we disagree. Especially on the drug issue. I'd rather just see them legalized. up through crack and heroin. Wouldn't bother me in the least...and I'm what they called straight-edge back in college. No booze, no drugs.
Deb, I don't believe anyone 'owes' anyone much of anything. And a funny thing happens when we decide that they do. Higher minimum wage reduces the number of jobs available at that level. Time proven maxim. Good intention of making sure that wal-mart guy makes 7 instead of 6 an hour, bad effect.
In every place I'm familiar with where govt and society decides they owe or are owed, the people 'owed' see a loss in what they do have. Increased entitlement spending leads, inevitably, to a decrease in these people's salaries. At which point someone will say "we didn't increase it enough" and the cycle will continue. I think someoen said something about Insanity being rather similar to that situation.
We saw this MOST clearly and most openly stated with the recent WalMart deal with healthcare. Their logic for not providing healthcare was "why should we? they've got Medicaid"
Posted by: IndianCowboy
|
February 10, 2006 3:49 PM
I don't know IndanCowboy. We have a situation where 40% of populace can't afford heathcare insurance. Yet, we have excellent healthcare available for purchase. Something just isn't in balance there. Most people don't save for retirement anywhere near the level they need to.
I still think it comes down to an affordability issue for these people. The only way they can increase their purchasing ability is to earn more. I know we could argue most of them have a TV larger than needed, etc. So, they are responsible in that regard.
I think we could consider increasing the amount people earn at the lower end of the scale if we had the social conscience to more equitably distribute the wealth. To me, it is no coincidence that the gap between rich and poor is widening at the same time lower paid workers cannot afford healthcare. That is the sense in which I pose the question about what people are 'owed'.
Have we calculated the full cost of masses of people living on the edge of poverty? It is something like comparing the cost of a kilowatt produced by photovoltaic cells versus the cost per kilowatt from your local fossil fuel burning utility. There is a lot more to it than that simple comparison.
I am not sure I accept the mantra that says raising the minimum wage reduces the number of jobs. I know it's a favorite of every Chamber of Commerce in the country but I never see any studies published that demonstrate the fact. For employers paying the minimum wage, when they all do it's a level playing field. The wages are neutral to their competitive position. Sure it may raise prices in some cases, but there has to be some sane correlation between the price of a hamburger and heart surgery.
But that is not what I am talking about anyway. The revenue pie is of a finite size. How you cut it up is another question. I am assuming you are familiar with the current wealth ditribution ratios and trends. If you don't value your fellow society members enough to see them living at some reasonable level, what do you value?
Do you understand the correlation of nutrition and learning achievement? Do you believe every child should have the opportunity to a solid education, one that progresses as far as their talents allow? Do you understand that we will always have 50% of our populace that in some way will be considered below average and all that that implies?
No one merits a free ride, but we all deserve a fair shake.
Posted by: deb | February 10, 2006 9:41 PM
deb, poverty isn't too far back in my family history. My young widowed great grandmother who saw her older two daughters die of tropical disease. My young grandmother who in consequence never got to high school, but managed to put her kids through college. My mother who gave birth to me when my parents couldn't even afford disposable diapers.
the healthcare insurance problem is multifactorial, ranging from tort reform to hospital consolidation, to...low payouts from medicaid and medicare jacking up prices on the rest of us in order to get a good average price, to the fact that money-saving measures such as good-health discounts are limited in scope by things like the ADA and anti-discrimination laws.
You can not agree with the idea that raising minimum wage decreases total number of low-skill jobs all you want. Just like you can not agree that the more government benefits offered to those in the lowest income brackets only decreases their takehome pay. Which doesn't change that that's what we see happen time and time again. It's something that 90% of economists agree on. As you know, economists are as political as anyone (look at Paul Krugman). They also trend far more to the left than other business school depts.
It may be a level playing field, but you must remember that the marginal utility of additional low-skill jobs is very low. Would you really notice if there were 10% less workers in your local Walmart? What about if there were one or two fewer staff at a fast food restaurant? Probably not. Increasing entry-level pay decreases the marginal utility of adding another one of those jobs. THat's why they drop.
It happened in much of Europe already (whose economic picture is NOT as rosy as many claim). I'm watching it happen in India right now, and I'm afraid it'll ahppen in the US as well.
You can't increase their take home pay while increasing their mandatory benefits at the same time. It's like trying to have your cake and eat it too.
And yes i'm familiar with the current income distribution. I'm also familiar with the current taxation distribution. Once you subsidize the poor, you remove their incentive to better themselves...and more importantly their children. (don't believe me? go live in a poorer neighborhood in London or Paris, as I did last year).
I'm a student of behavioral ecology. I use models very similar to what economists use. The models worked for them, which is why we adopted them after a little light massage in the first place. And they work for us. I trust those models. I trust the concept of Signalling Honesty, of Invadable Systems, of marginal utility, of opportunity cost, of the individual ultimately being self-interested, and all that.
I understand that while 'is' does not imply 'ought', that doesn't necessarily mean that 'ought' is even possible. Anytime we invoked social conscience, we descend into the realm of 'oughts' and 'shoulds'. My blameless grandmother shouldn't have had the husband she had, but she did. I shouldn't be sitting here with extensive nerve damage from a vaccine that was supposed to keep me healthy, but I am.
I am one of those cynics who believes that 'in a perfect world' scenarios will never work because our planet is by definition imperfect. The only thing I truly believe in is that all individuals are self-interested.
I'm bad at gauging the tone of my own posts so i hope this didn't come across as adversarial or disparaging. You have brought up some great points and have an excellent style. But I think what we have is a fundamental difference in worldview here. This has been a great discussion though.
Posted by: IndianCowboy
|
February 11, 2006 5:42 AM