GRIDLOCK

Author Tony De Maio

Once upon a time in a land far, far away, there was a peaceful, prosperous town. The town was called “Gridlock”.

This town was quite interesting. Most of the decisions were made democratically in town hall (sometimes called town howl) meetings. There were THREE politically parties in the town, called “Social Government”, “Business Government”, and “No Government”. The city council had 6 members, two from each party. No one party had a clear majority. Because the “No Government” party voted “no” on everything and the other two parties opposed each other, little governmental action and few laws occurred. As a consequence, the town prospered.

One summer day, a grass fire broke out several miles from the town. The City Council immediately called a town meeting to discuss the fire. Much discussion ensued about the fire, how to fight it, and whether or not it even SHOULD be fought.

The fire burned closer.

One party made an eloquent speech about the “natural environment”, and how fires were a necessary part of nature and should be allowed to burn naturally. If action were taken, it should be to build a backfire to fight the fire. Since it was late, the meeting was adjourned to be reconvened the next day when a vote would be taken.

The fire burned closer.

The next day, a group informed the town meeting that the fire was larger and closer, and that some action should probably be taken soon. The council thanked the group for the report. A vote was held on the backfire proposal; it lost 2:1. A cheer went up from the other two groups.

A second group made a proposal to use chemicals on the fire. It was proposed to call the governor and have fire fighting planes drop chemicals on the fire. This was opposed as being “not natural” since the chemicals were not friendly to the environment. Much discussion was held. It was decided to break for lunch and reconvene the meeting that evening when a vote would be taken.

The fire burned closer.

That evening, a rather panicked group told the town that the fire had grown much larger, was much closer to town, and that SOME action had to be taken soon. The council thanked the group for its report. A vote was taken on using chemicals; it lost 2:1. A cheer went up from the other two groups.

A third group proposed using water on the fire. It would be necessary to call the governor and get additional tanker trucks and water carrying aircraft and helicopters. This was opposed since it would require water from the town lake and might deplete the water supply. Fish might die.

A vote was held on the proposal; it lost 2:1. A cheer went up from the other two groups. The meeting was adjourned, to be reconvened the next day when more discussions would take place.

The fire burned closer.

During the night, the National Guard arrived in the town and forcibly evacuated all the people. They started a backfire to attempt to control the fire. They called in aircraft and helicopters that dropped water and chemicals on the fire and put the fire out—but not before the town was destroyed.

These were my thoughts as I watched in disbelief as, during the President’s speech, the Democrats hooted and cheered the failure of Social Security reform. I watched with incredulity as they celebrated their ability to block any solution to the problem, or even reasonably address it. I observed with astonishment as they publicly celebrated being obstructionists with the whole country watching.

Like it or not, the fire is burning closer.

———————————————————————————————————

For those of you uneducated in the ways of Social Security, it works like this:

Folks pay about 7% from their checks to their employer. Their employer matches this amount and sends the money to the government. The government receives the money, notes how much the total amount is, and deposits that money into the general fund. Each month, the general fund pays out money to Social Security recipients. The difference between what is paid out and what is received is calculated, and a treasury bond (IOU) is issued for that amount and placed in “The Social Security Trust Fund”.

Presently, this amount is “positive”—i.e. the amount received is greater than the amount paid out. It is due to become “negative” about 2013. I suspect that about 2013, changes will be made to Social Security. As of today, there is no need to modify the system since it is (temporarily) solvent, and there is a considerable amount of “surplus” for Congress to spend as they wish. It is unreasonable to expect Congress to modify Social Security at this time since they would be depriving themselves of that money. By the time the situation “goes critical” most of the present crop of legislators will be gone or near retirement. It will be the next generation’s problem. THEY can pay for the party they never attended.

If you were doing this privately, it would be tantamount to saving for retirement by placing $100 each month in a jar for your retirement. At the end of the month, you find that you do not have the $100, so you put a post-dated check in the jar, dated for the following year and promise 10% interest on the money. You continue to do this for a year, at which time the first check becomes “due”. At that time, you remove the check you previously wrote, and write another check for $110 ($100 plus 10% interest) and place THAT check back in the jar. As time goes on, you would have many checks in the jar all “earning” 10% interest. When folks asked about your plans for retirement, you could reply:

“I have a trust fund that is earning 10% interest.”

And, IT WOULD BE “THE TRUTH”.

Note: This paper was written several years ago. It is my understanding that due to the present economy, the Social Security “trust fund” will go negative this year, much sooner than expected.

Related posts:

1. Taxes and Choices

This entry was posted on Friday, March 19th, 2010 at 12:08 am and is filed under Authors, Tony Demaio. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.