Would you like to be part of a nationwide movement? Would you like to be one of the few, the proud and the brave? If so I need your help in correcting one of the greatest errors created by Representatives. Yes, it is that time again. Most of us have completed or soon will complete their tax returns for 2006. While most will look at the W-2 and see how much they paid in Federal and State income taxes, how many will take the time to look at the two other boxes called Medicare and Social Security?
If you were born after 1985, the most you can ever hope to get for each one dollar paid in Social Security Old Age Survivors Insurance Tax is 29 cents. No matter what our elected representatives do, whether it be raise the retirement age, payroll base, social security tax or cut benefits, you can only get 29 cents.
If they raise the retirement age, you pay longer and collect less.
If they raise the base, you pay more and collect and hopefully collect the promised benefit stated in your yearly Social Security Statement.
If they raise the social security tax, you pay more and hopefully collect the promised benefit stated in your yearly Social Security Statement.
If they cut your social security benefits, do you think they will cut your social security taxes, no?
The bottom line is there is no painless solution to this con.
If you would like to keep your social security taxes as well as your employer’s portion paid on your behalf and JUST SAY NO TO SOCIAL SECURITY, then we can work together to make this happen. I have a plan, what I need are people to put up signs, speak to others, setup meetings with groups and get the message out.
If you think Mark Souder is working on this age-old problem think again.
Mark Souder spoke to Prime Time 39 on 3-12-2004 and referred to Social Security as a "shell game." He stated, "For people under 30 its probably going to be income based. I am not saying we're going to pass that. It will probably be passed after I am dead." He continued "If you're 40, you might make it through the system. But if you're under 40, and certainly under 30, you had better start planning because if you want to have a decent retirement you’re going to need supplemental funds."
Our representatives are not representing us.
Give me a call at (260) 637-0741 or email me at REPEALSS@juno.com
Public Records
I was speaking with my mom the yesterday. She told me she heard on the news that the IRS lost lap-tops with taxpayers personal information. She also told me that WANE TV-15 had a report on our local area. It seems that our local government allows access to personal information.
The privacy act of 1974 was passed in order to safe guard personal information. It mandated all government agencies that asked for information to identify to the individual the purpose for requesting information as well as the legal authority to require it. Information you give is not legally to be available to the public. Any identifying information is supposed to be eliminated from records made public. Computer systems were to have security systems in place. Access to records were to be restricted to a need to know.
The individual at the Public Records office stated that it has been that way forever. They are working on correcting this problem over the next four months. Where have these people been? We have identity theft and they have been allowing anyone to obtain and copy any record marriage, birth, death, property and more, all with name, DOB, SSN and more.
We need a class action suit to close this down now! These people need to be fired and prosecuted. Those in office should never be allowed to seek office again.
Free Speech
Free speech is one of the most important rights we have. Federal courts as well as the Supreme Court of the United States have repeatedly up held free speech. EACS has suspended/fired a teacher for allowing an article on tolerance to be printed in the school newspaper. I truly believe that EACS is violating and infringing on free speech and I reference the Supreme Court Ruling of 1969 in “Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District” “It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”
There is here no evidence whatever of the editorial having interference, actual or nascent, with the schools' work or of collision with the rights of other students to be secure and to be let alone. Accordingly, this article does not concern speech or action that intrudes upon the work of the schools or the rights of other students.
In our system, undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression. Any departure from absolute regimentation may cause trouble. Any variation from the majority's opinion may inspire fear. Any word spoken, in class, in the lunchroom, or on the campus, that deviates from the views of another person may start an argument or cause a disturbance. But our Constitution says we must take this risk and our history says that it is this sort of hazardous freedom -- this kind of openness -- that is the basis of our national strength and of the independence and vigor of Americans who grow up and live in this relatively permissive, often disputatious, society.
In order for the State in the person of school officials to justify prohibition of a particular expression of opinion, it must be able to show that its action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint. Certainly where there is no finding and no showing that engaging in the forbidden conduct would "materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school," the prohibition cannot be sustained. Burnside v. Byars, supra at 749.
Under our Constitution, free speech is not a right that is given only to be so circumscribed that it exists in principle, but not in fact. Freedom of expression would not truly exist if the right could be exercised only in an area that a benevolent government has provided as a safe haven for crackpots. The Constitution says that Congress (and the States) may not abridge the right to free speech. This provision means what it says. We properly read it to permit reasonable regulation of speech-connected activities in carefully restricted circumstances. But we do not confine the permissible exercise of First Amendment rights to a telephone booth or the four corners of a pamphlet, or to supervised and ordained discussion in a school classroom.
Market Distortions
Last week the Department of Agriculture reported huge swings in planting acreage for 2007. Corn planting is up 13% while soy beans, wheat and cotton are all down double digits. I spoke with some farmers this past week on their choices and found half are planting more corn and the others are staying with the same rotation.
Farmers who choose to plant more corn can do so, but at a huge cost. Normally you plant corn one year and something else the following year. Corn is hard on the soil and so you give it a break to recoup. However, you can plant back to back corn crops using expensive fertilizers and chemicals.
Ethanol plants can get 1.5 gallons out of a bushel of corn. Farmers are betting corn is going to go up, but at $4 per bushel, the cost of the corn in terms of an ethanol gallon is $2.67 and that does not take into account energy, labor or equipment.
Ethanol plants purchased long term corn futures, but these only can last so long before, ethanol producers have to pay market prices. When this happens, they will either go to the taxpayer for a bailout or go out of business. What happens to the farmers who gambled on ethanol buying the corn?
Have you noticed how the price of food has increased these past six months? Ethanol is distorting the market and our government is helping them do it by using our tax dollars. Even though you may not buy ethanol, you help subsidize those who do to the tune of 52 cents per gallon.
