Softball With Chris Matthews

Tonight I watched MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews in utter amazement. It was a wise decision not to have Howard Dean in the same room with Chris during their anti-Bush discussion. If not, I feel sure Chris would have reached across and given Dean a big kiss and a hug. To call this an interview is ludicrous, to call this show hardball is a lie. Not once during the program did Chris rudely interrupt and harass his buddy Howard as is the norm with conservative guests. This is exactly why this program will never compete with ole Bill on Fox.

He (Bill) asks the hard questions to all guests. He asks follow-up questions when guests are ambiguous or say something startling. After watching this program , I am convinced Chris and Howard rehearsed their parts (written no doubt by a James Carville follower) prior to air time.
Dean is widely known for his outrageous comments, yet Matthews chose to attack our Vice President instead.

Matthews tried to make an issue of the VP remarks by invoking the "don't talk bout my mama" routine. The VP didn't talk about Dean's mother and Matthews knows better. The VP questioned his (Dean's) appeal when he said "maybe his mother loves him". Matthews on air ignorance of the context of the VPs remarks were disingenuous at best but more likely a direct lie.

More importantly, but just as sad, was his attention or lack thereof to what Dean said about the war. Did Howard Dean advocate invading Iran and or North Korea. We do not know because Chris failed to follow up on Dean's comments concerning the two countries. I would like to know why Dean thinks we need more troops in Afghanistan. I guess Matthews didn't want to go there.
I would like to know what Dean meant when he said earlier this summer that the republican party was mostly made up of white guys,,,, Christians? This topic wasn't mentioned.
Time after time we hear the mainstream media deny bias. Is Chris as oblivious to his liberal bias as Dan Rather? Where is ole Dan these days?

Social Security Suggestions

I currently live in Kansas and was astounded this morning to read in the Wichita Eagle Senator Sam Brownback's comments on President Bush's plan to reform social security. According to the newspaper, Brownback could not say anything positive about Bush's ideas other than he appreciated the president getting the debate started. In an interview on MSNBC, the senator stated " I don't think that's the sort of solution we ought to be going at", " I personally don't think that's really the route we ought to be going".

If this is not the route we should be taking, what is? Will we see our payroll taxes double again?
Will my children even have social security benefits? What changes in the system will help average blue-collar citizen.

I have probably never had an original idea in my life and I am sure that the folowing suggestions have been made before. Nonetheless, here are a few social security reform ideas to ponder.

#1. How about lowering the payroll tax rate from >6.5% to 3%?
Rationale: Do you remember the shock you felt when you received your first paycheck. You worked really hard and had big plans for all the money you had earned and expected to receive. Sadly when payday came Washington D.C. reached out and confiscated a huge chunk of the fruits of your labor. The money you had planned to spend then in your local community had been cut into so severely (Income taxes, SS deductions etc.) all purchases had to be reprioritized.
Lowering the confiscation rate would put more dollars in my hands. The more dollars in my hands translates to my spending more dollars in the local community thereby improving the local economy. Moreover, lower rates would put more dollars in the cash accounts of small businesses, thereby improving the chances for additional local jobs, higher wages, and/or improved benefits.

#2. Raise the confiscation cap to the first million earned.

Rationale: There must be away to make up for the lost revenue created by lowering the payroll tax.

President Bush's plan sounds good to me, not for me, but for my children and their generation. I particularly like the idea that when I die, under the Presidents plan, I could leave my retirement assets to my spouse (if I had one) or my children. The strong opposition to this
key plank should remind you that there are many in this country that do not think todays blue-collar family should have the opportunity to advance from one generation to the next.

The Democrat/Brownback alternative is to either increase payroll tax rates, raise the retirement age, and/or lower benefits. Congress, specifically the Senate, has become a Jurassic Park. A home for wayward dinosaurs. I sincerely hope and pray American citizens will get more involved with this issue and demand from our governement innovative and creative solutions to these and other problems.

Social Security Personal Accounts

After the president's news conference last night, Chris Matthews interviewed Democratic Senators Durbin of Illinois and Schumer of New York. Matthews asked each to explain the democrats alternative to president Bush's social security reform plan. Senator Durbin talked in circles and never answered the question. Not surprisingly, Matthews failed to follow-up and push for a direct answer. Senator Schumer however, gave a glimpse of what the democrats have in mind for the future of our social security. He said the president should appoint a commission (providing cover for all as in the BRAC "base realignment and closure:Commission) The last time this occurred, payroll taxes increased dramatically and the retirement age was raised. This is the democrat alternative as usual. Higher taxes and reduced benefits.

I cannot for the life of me see nor understand the opposition to personal accounts. Just the benefit of being able to pass benefits to a surviving spouse/children merits further consideration but democrats once again display their opposition to any new idea reaffirming my belief that the democratic party is stuck in the past, hyper-change resistant and doomed to go the way of the dinosaurs.