If you have a complaint, go see our Complaint Manager, Helen Wait. That's right...go to Helen Wait.

Imagine this:  You decide you want a new flat-screen TV.  You're in Walmart and you notice they have a nice 75" Samsung priced for less than $1700, and they offer LAYAWAY.  Woohoo!  So you go to the service desk, fill out the paperwork, and make a down payment.  Every month you stop in and make a payment, and in mid-December you go in to make your final payment and pick up your new TV.  But instead of your expected 75" Samsung, they bring out this and hand it to you:

"Whoa!  No...no...this is NOT what I paid for" you say. 

"Sorry sir, but Walmart has realized they under-priced the TV they promised you, and this is all they'll be able to deliver for what you paid."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This, with little exaggeration, is where Social Security and Medicare are headed.  From the time you began your working career back in 19__ you have been putting money every payday into the Social Security Trust Fund, and Medicare via the Federal Insurance Contributions Act.  But the closer you get to receiving the social benefits you've already paid for, you'll hear "Oooo, sorry, but we may not be able to deliver what we've promised you."
 
Earlier this week the Congressional Budget Office issued their projection for the Federal budget deficit from now through 2028.  They say it will actually amount to $11.7 TRILLION DOLLARS ($1.6T more than they forecast just this past June).  That's a deficit of well over A TRILLION DOLLARS A YEAR, even after figuring in the increased economic growth that was supposed to make up for the tax cut shortfall.

Why so much?  Mainly for two reasons:  1, more people are reaching Social Security and Medicare age, resulting in more tax dollars being spent on those social programs; and 2, yes, reduced revenue to the Treasury due to last year's tax cut.   

You can't tell me Congress didn't see this coming when they voted a TRILLION dollar tax cut last year.  With all the data they had available they should have had no trouble projecting things like this 20 years ago.  But instead of adjusting taxes in anticipation of what was to come, they just kicked the can down the road for fear of losing votes right then.

Soon-to-retire House Speaker Paul Ryan has for years been the chief proponent of both cutting taxes and "reforming" Social Security and Medicare to make them more "sustainable"....that's the code word for "cutting benefits".  The two front-runners to replace him as Speaker are Congressman Kevin McCarthy and Congressman Steve Scalise (assuming Republican's keep control of the House of Representatives), both of whom share Ryan's vision.

But not to worry, they say those Americans now at or very near retirement age wouldn't be affected by any "sustainability" cuts.  Keep in mind these are the same folks who said all our money would be there for us when we retired, too. (Hmmm...could this be the impetus behind gun control?  Nothing scarier than a bunch of pissed off seniors running around with guns, right?)  *chuckle*

Just don't act surprised when, not if, it happens.

S

Follow the money

The Senate is currently on their third....or is it their fourth or fifth....iteration of a "Repeal and Replace ObamaCare" attempt, and this one is no better than the ones that came before it.  As bad as ObamaCare supposedly is, all their attempts to date have been giant steps BACKWARD.  The highlight of the current Republican bill is to give each state a "block grant", essentially a pot of cash, and then tell them to figure out what to do with health care.  "Not my circus, not my monkey" the Feds can then say.

Polls show less than 20% of Americans like this giant step backwards.  Neither does AARP, or the American Medical Association, or the various hospital associations, or the insurers, or the drug makers, or the American Cancer Society, The American Heart Association, the Diabetes Foundation, or any other group advocating on behalf of people with health issues.  So why are Republicans so hellbent on ramming this "reform" down our throats?  Who wins in this deal?

FOLLOW THE MONEY

The only logical explanation I can come up with is that, to Republicans, "Repeal and Replace ObamaCare" is simply a means to a greater goal.  They have told their ultra-wealthy mega-donors that they will deliver to them a giant tax cut, but before they can do that, they first have to come up with a pile of cash from somewhere.  That "somewhere", they have decreed, will be from the Federal healthcare kitty....cut a few hundred billion here, transfer it on to there.  But if they can't realize big savings via a repeal/replace bill, their promised wealth transfer, their REAL goal, is dead in the water.  

If you can think of another reason why congressional Republicans are pushing so hard to pass such a supremely unpopular bill, please let me know.

If they should ever succeed in achieving this goal, hold on!  Their next target will be Medicare and Social Security.  Speaker of the House Paul Ryan has already (correctly) labeled them as the two most expensive Federal programs that can be looted...er..."reformed" in order to realize great savings.  He just never tells us where those savings will go.

So, as is always the case, FOLLOW THE MONEY.  That will show you who is pulling the strings, and who the big winner will always be.

S

Is "socialist" the most feared word in America?

  Damn socialists!

I recently clicked on one of those silly quizzes that asked, "Are you more American or European?"  One of my Facebook friends, who is German by birth, felt the gist of it was that Americans are freedom loving, hard working, go-it-alone individualists, and Europeans aren't.  That Europeans are all just a bunch of *gag...puke...choke* SOCIALISTS.  Ewwwwww!

Truth is, Americans have benefited from many programs some would call "socialist", like SOCIAL Security and Medicare.  I'll concede, some Americans probably don't like Social Security or Medicare, as they will never in a million years ever need to rely on either.  They can just cut a check for whatever they want.

But what about public schools?  Isn't that a social program, paid for by all, for the benefit of all?  How about interstate highways, paid for by all, for the benefit of all?  

How about fire departments?  Modern professional fire departments are a fairly recent development.  Battling fires used to be something neighbors did for each other on a volunteer basis, with abysmal results.  Now we have highly professional, highly effective municipal fire departments, paid for by all, for the benefit of all.  Ditto for law enforcement....paid for by all, for the benefit of all.

When I was in school, way back in the last century, we were taught in civics class that government existed to do for people what they couldn't do for themselves.  At the time of the writing of our Constitution that meant things like maintaining a postal system and maintaining a strong military, paid for by all, for the benefit of all.  It was a pretty simple time.

Now, in this century, it seems reasonable to empower a Securities and Exchange Commission to look out for us, as "financial services" are much too sophisticated for the average person to comprehend, which leads to many of us getting ripped off.  We need an SEC to protect us, paid for by all, for the benefit of all.

How about a Food and Drug Administration, paid for by all, for the benefit of all?  Would you know how to tell if a drug is effective and safe, or just worthless snake oil, or worse? 

We're now on the cusp of comprehensive health care falling into the category of things we probably can't do on our own.  If a national health plan similar to that practiced in the UK is too radical for us, maybe we could look elsewhere, such as in my friend's native Germany, for a health care system that works, that is insurance based, and is universal.  But to just whack what we have now, without a better replacement, just to please those who will never have to worry about paying for anything, is just wrong! 

My point is, benefiting from some social programs does not make us socialists, and is something to be embraced, not feared.  We've had them for years, whether we've realized it or not, and they've served us well.

S

Circle the wagons, boys!

It isn't exactly "Breaking News" when I say that people get really touchy when you talk about getting into their wallets.  "It's MINE, I WORKED for it, you CAN'T have it!"  And this, IMO, is why our government today is so dysfunctional and our people are so upset.  One economic class feels they're paying for benefits that another economic class is receiving, and to be honest, it's largely true.  (Their elected political manipulators see this perpetual standoff as their job security.)

TAXES.  Just saying the word gets most people's blood pressure up.  The average middle class guy feels he's working 100 mph to pay for day care, to put braces on his kids teeth, to somehow pay another semester's tuition for his oldest to stay in college, to pay the deductibles and co-pays on his heath insurance, or if he's an "independent contractor", to pay for his family's health insurance that might cost more than his house payment, etc.  It's a struggle for sure.

Meanwhile, in his mind, another economic class gets free child care, food stamps, rent subsidies, college grants (that require no payback), free medical care (via Medicaid) and even a free cell phone, all paid for by HIM!  And then when you interject race into the equation, it really gets nasty!  To the average middle class taxpayer (statistically likely to be white) the average beneficiary of our social safety net is black or brown, and now includes immigrants, too, hence the animosity.  Facts to the contrary be damned!  He simply can't fathom his economic situation deteriorating to the point he might need some of those services himself some day.  These are benefits (he thinks) he'll never receive.

This is where he thinks his taxes are going.

At the other extreme, while he vaguely knows about the massive government subsidies going to the private sector ($37B to Big Oil, $270B to Big Pharma, $18B to Big Ag, $83B to Wall Street, etc) he can't put a face with a $$$$ to know who to direct his anger at.  (I know, I know, a preposition at the end.  Shoot me.  ;) 

This is why the idea of a tax increase to balance the budget, for example, is a non-starter.  "MORE money to give to those bums? Oh HELL no!"  

In their minds they, personally, aren't getting anything for their tax dollars (hello!...national defense, highways, etc?), with the exception of Medicare and Social Security.  Ahhh....don't you love it when a Tea Party supporter holds his sign up high that says "NO SOCIALISM IN AMERICA!!", then says, "but don't mess with my Medicare or Social Security."  *dude, those programs are the epitome of socialism!*  

As long as people don't feel like they are themselves getting anything for their tax dollars, they're going to resist.  Call them anything you want....selfish, greedy, uncompassionate....when you get into people's wallets, the battle lines will be drawn.  Let's just hope the rest of the world stays more f__ked up than us so they'll run over here with their $$$$ and finance our debt.

Just my thoughts. 

S

New math

We seem to have become a "math challenged" society.  I saw it many times during my 40+ years as a custom homebuilder.  A client would come to me and say they had a hard budget of $    X     .  After learning what they wanted in terms of their amenities, I would advise them they should expect approx    Y    square feet in order to stay within budget.

Then we would all sit down with the architect and they would tell him to cap the footage at    Y    feet, and that they were willing to accept smaller secondary bedrooms, say 100 square feet each...."so make them 12 feet x 12 feet."

That's pretty much how our government has worked for decades.  A succession of congresses and presidents have wanted more than they could pay for.  That's how we got our $19,000,000,000,000 deficit.  We got away with it because no matter how badly we f__ked things up here in America, we were still less f__ked up than the rest of the world.  Smart money "over there" would invest their money here (read:  finance our deficit) because we were still considered a safe, stable country.  It was  all relative.

Tomorrow Prez Trump is going to give Congress his new budget outline.  He's said he was going to dramatically boost defense spending and infrastructure improvement, while not touching Social Security or Medicare.  Oh, and he wants a BIG tax cut, too.  I'm sure the Tea Party is sweating bullets right now!  Their whole reason for being is to cut spending and the deficit, and here a fellow Republican is proposing an increase in both.

"Not to worry" they'll say.  "We're going to increase income by growing the economy by 4% (thereby increasing tax revenues) and by cutting 'waste, fraud, and inefficiency'".

Have you ever heard a competent financial adviser say, "Sure, go ahead and buy that big new vacation house.  You're bound to get a substantial raise any day now.  I hope." And hasn't every president since Calvin Coolidge promised to save money by cutting waste, fraud, and inefficiency?  *still waiting*

The truth is, there are too many powerful constituencies (read: voters, special interests, and campaign contributors) who would scream bloody murder if Congress cut anything that affected them, and if there's anything every congressman loves it's happy voters and campaign contributors, so....

What will eventually happen is there will be, out of absolute dire necessity, a substantial tax increase on the wealthy.  "But how is that fair", the rich will ask?  My answer:  It isn't, but it's sorta like the answer John Dillinger gave when asked why he robbed banks:  "Because that's where the money is."

Fact.

S

Dear gawd....say it ain't so!

Now this is just disgusting.  If I was an orange or a cherry I'd be insulted.  I'm totally grossed out.  

I mean, carrots are horse food.  

Tomatoes go on hamburgers.  And pizza.  Neither belong in ice cream.  Ewwwwww!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So how are we supposed to start a revolution if they have all the bullets?

That's what all the conspiracy theorists were asking when they found out the Department of Homeland Security had bought 1.6 BILLION rounds of ammunition.  They claim that it's the gubments way of controlling guns since they can't do it via congressional action....they're just buying up all the ammo.

And now this:  The Postal Service, the Social Security Administration, the Department of Agriculture, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) are buying up large amounts of ammunition, too.

All four have their own police force, and their own SWAT teams!  (I have visions of Police Academy.)

OK, I can see the postal inspectors needing all that.  There are all manner of vicious criminals sending illegal junk mail who need to be whacked.  I get it.

The Agriculture Department?   I'll buy that, too.  Someone needs to slap down those evil vegetable growers, and those Haagan Dasz people in Japan should they decide to bring that veggie ice cream crap to 'Merica.

But the Social Security folks?  Do they get in shoot-outs and high speed chases on gubment Segways with the gray hairs on their walkers?  Really?

And NOAA....the folks who Give Us This Day Our Daily Forecast?  So they're no longer satisfied with just telling us about the summer heat?  Now they want to pack it, too?

Who'd a thunk it?  ;)

S

This is gonna get ugly

Look out Washington.  Here they come!

The Democrats and Republicans have been waging a battle of wills....some would say stubbornness....as they fight about budgets and debt ceiling limits and such. The newspapers and cable TV report it, and some of us bloggers write about it, but odds are it has touched very few people any of us might know personally, if any at all.  

That could change in a big way very soon.  It's said that if the government defaults on paying it's bills (as soon as later this month), Social Security recipients, disabled veterans, military retirees, and others might not be getting their monthly checks.  I don't think the politicians realize what they're letting themselves in for when they start playing pinata with a beehive of Gray Hairs.

It's one thing to heap scorn on a welfare recipient who won't work and lives off his gubment handout and food stamps, yet has a new smartphone, a bottle of hooch and a carton of cigarettes, and a body full of expensive tattoos.  "Get off your ass you bums and get a job!"

I dare you to go up to your elderly neighbor wearing his "WWII Veteran" ball cap, or your grandmother, and tell them to "get a job you bum" because they can't pay for their apartment or food or medicine because their meager savings can't cover the shortfall of them not getting their social security checks.  Or the disabled veteran who is missing limbs because he/she did their time protecting you so you could get your MBA and land that great job on Wall Street, get rich, and join the Tea Party (or any party).

The government checks these people get are NOT welfare.  They PRE-PAID for these benefits by working for decades, paying into a supplemental retirement system every payday of their lives.  Same with veterans, whose terms of employment stipulated that if they were injured on the job they would be cared for.  Unilaterally change their terms of employment and not pay them NOW?  REALLY?

I agree there are lots of worthless programs our government can and should cut to save a buck.  But it would take a pretty cold person who shares a special relationship with the devil to hit on the Gray Hairs.

S

"Hi....I'm from the government and I'm here to help", or "Bend over and feel the love"

Imagine for a minute you decided you wanted a new computer, but you didn't want to go into debt for it.  Then you heard of a merchant who would sell you one on an old-fashioned layaway plan....you paid monthly, and when you'd paid in full, you could go and pick up your purchase.  It was sale priced, so you jumped at it.

This was the prize you were promised.

After working hard day after day, looking at the picture of your new computer stuck to your refrigerator door with a little magnet, waiting for the day when you could get your hands on it, you go to the store to claim your hard earned prize, and this is what they handed you....

Then they tell you they miscalculated....they couldn't deliver on that new computer after all.  Their projections were way off, they were operating in the red, costs were up, revenues were down, times were tough.  Never mind what they promised, but this was all you were going to get.  Sorry.

This is essentially what is threatening to happen with Social Security.  Most Republicans and more than a few Democrats have decided that "entitlements" must be cut if we're ever to have a balanced budget, or even a manageable deficit.  It seems the politicians have over-promised.  *shock!*

Only one little problem....people PAID into Social Security all their working lives in order to have that little pot of money waiting for them when they retired.  It's THEIR money!  Anything they could put aside over and above Social Security was great, but at the very least they had their Social Security waiting for them.   Now the gubment is considering taking at least some of it away.

"Entitlement" means they've already paid for it and they are entitled to receive it.  IMO, at this point it's a right, not a privilege.

This might be a bit more palatable if they had scrapped the entire tax code and put in a new one that treated everyone equally, but they didn't.  There are still subsidies and loopholes sprinkled throughout the old code, robbing the gubment of revenues it needs to keep above water.  And now they want to change the Social Security rules in the middle of the game to make up for their wild promises elsewhere.

Loopholes and subsidies are not paid for in advance.  They are pure and simple freebies to the recipients.  They are not entitled to them.

So people who are "entitled" to something are (maybe) not going to get it, while people who are NOT entitled to something can still count on getting theirs.

I could not in my wildest dream imagine a more dishonorable idea.  Considering it's coming from Congress I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

Oh....and Happy Tax Day.  :)

S

From 1992 to 2009 I served on the Civil Service Commission in my city.  We set the rules for police and fire department employment, promotion, discipline, and removal.  One rule that had been in effect for many years (prior to my service) said that unused sick/personal leave could accumulate.  This meant that after 20 or more years of service an employee could have many months worth of sick/personal leave built up that he/she could use to in effect accelerate retirement (not show up for work) and still get paid.

The city realized this was costing them lots of money to pay overtime for police/fire fighters to cover for employees coasting into retirement early and they asked us to change the rule effective immediately.  The city would "buy" some of the accumulated leave time from each officer/fire fighter, but not all his accumulated time.

Problem was, this was an enticement when it came to recruiting new employees and was part of their original terms of employment.  In my mind, to disavow that promise later would be wrong (and maybe illegal).  We voted to change the rule for any NEW hires, but to honor our word to our existing officers/fire fighters.

Isn't this essentially what is happening now with our Medicare and Social Security systems?  We were told (not asked) that we would pay in X% from our pay and we would have Y benefits at the time of our retirement.  Now the government realizes it's costing them big bucks to do this and they want to back peddle.

How is this right?  A deal is a deal.  No?

The government has already postponed retirement for most of us by a year or two, and now they're talking about amending things further.  They win, we lose.  If they want to have a two-tier system from this day forward, fine, but to change the rules in the middle of the game....

Is congress going to cut back THEIR (extremely liberal) retirement package?  Are they going to unilaterally cut back the retirement terms of current and former government employees (one of their most favored constituencies)?  

You put something on layaway at a department store, pay on it for months, then when paid in full go to pick up your purchase and are told they're changing the terms....they're only going to deliver to you the basic model, not the super deluxe model you were promised.  Would you say anything or would you push back?

They call Medicare and Social Security "entitlements", which in popular modern vernacular implies "I didn't do anything to deserve it, but I'm entitled to it anyway."  Nothing could be further from the truth.  I paid for mine, and I have the receipts to prove it.

IMO, we taxpayers have held up our end of the deal, now it's time for the government to hold up their end.  As it is, they're holding up their end all right, and saying, "Kiss it!"

Counterpoint anyone?

S

Screwed again, and we didn't even get a kiss

So our politicians tell us that we're broke....way past broke, actually....because of all the old-timers now signing up for their Medicare and Social Security, which, by the way, they PAID for over their working lives.  (And if the tax rate was insufficient to keep those trust funds properly topped off, whose fault is that?)

But wait....now we find out that a cool $76 BILLION DOLLARS in special-interest tax credits was included in the recent "fiscal cliff" legislation.  Lobbyists such as the firm headed by former Senator's John Breaux (D-LA) and Trent Lott (R-MS), representing companies like General Electric and Citigroup, secured for them an extension to the provision that allows multinational corporations to defer US taxes by moving profits into offshore financial subsidiaries.  (Their profits are all credited to subsidiaries in low-tax countries like Luxembourg where they might have nothing more than a PO Box.  They then pay Luxembourg taxes, not US taxes.)

Known as the "active financing exception", this is the tool that GE (and quite a few others, too) uses to avoid paying nearly all US corporate taxes.  Also blessed with sweetheart tax breaks were companies like rum distiller Diageo, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, the American Wind Energy Association and the Motion Picture Association of America. (I checked and Park Place Custom Homes didn't get crap!)

Obviously their shareholders are ecstatic, but how is the taxpayer's interest served here?  

This scam was one the Obama administration insisted be included, and the Republicans feebly and quietly objected to, then voted "aye" anyway.  ("I'll vote for yours if you'll vote for mine?")  I wonder if we went back over the past 30 years or so and looked very carefully how much of our $16 TRILLION DOLLAR debt could be attributed to these kinds of giveaways?

No....no kiss, or dinner, or a movie, or even cab fare home.  Just a plain old fashioned screwing.  "I feel so....so used."

S

There's no turning back now

OK, it's official....I'm retired.  I checked my bank statement online yesterday and there it was, my first Social Security check.  There's no turning back now.  Not that I'd want to.  It's a nice little chunk of change, but it's an odd feeling to see money appear without feeling like I worked for it, at least recently.  Getting paid now for work I did 40 years ago just feels....strange.

The promised cold front finally arrived yesterday and it's a doozie.  This morning at 0600 it was 50 degrees, but the wind was blowing 25 mph, making the wind chill feel like 44.  Let's hope the leaves take the hint and start changing colors.

Friends here on Blogger who live up north keep showing scenes dominated by reds and oranges and yellows, while I look outside here and still see lawn mowing crews.  Here's hoping my east coast friends can make it through the "Perfect Storm" the weatherguessers say is coming their way.

I had some free time yesterday ('cause I'm retired....see above ;), so I went and voted.  The line wasn't too long and I was in and out in 10 minutes.  I really felt cheated, though, because I know that regardless of how or even if I vote, the outcome in my county and state isn't in doubt.  I'd like to see a little suspense, you know?

And finally, my "Things That Chap My Hide" for the day:  I hate it when I'm trying to make a sandwich involving peanut butter and I'm down to the very bottom of the jar.  There is no way to get the PB out without getting it all over the handle of the knife.  Klutz that I am, it's a short jump from getting it on my hand to on my clothes and in my hair.

Listen up JIF....make your jars shorter and wider at the top.  They'll still pack and ship just fine.  Trust me.

Have a great weekend everyone.

S

I didn't see THAT coming!

  
I think like many people I watched the Veep debate last night expecting to see a personable Joe Biden yap and on que say something funny that Saturday Night Live can take and make into a hilarious skit.  That SNL skit may still happen, but what I actually witnessed was an informed, powerful, very combative, stand-his-ground candidate Biden.

Specifically, here's what I saw:  Biden probably said the words "middle class" 20 times.  Same with "level playing field", and "a fair shake".  He came across as the populist defender of The People, something I think will play well with blue-collar voters.   And what is THE most critical state still in play?  Ohio....gritty, blue-collar Ohio.  Eighteen electoral vote Ohio.

Biden got so worked up on several occasions I fully expected to see him start foaming at the mouth.  But again, that much passion is probably appreciated by the blue-collar types.  Just go into a bar in Ohio and bring up Michigan, or vice versa.  You'll see lots of "mouth foaming"!

And Biden had something for war-weary voters, too, when he promised we would be out of Afghanistan by 2014.  "Sure, the Afghans would be happy to let us keep doing their fighting for them forever.  That's why we put them on notice.  'You'd better be ready to defend YOUR country come 2014.'" I think that struck a popular chord and will be well received.

In this case at least I think Biden's age and experience trumped Ryan's youth and vigor.  How could Ryan compete with Biden's "I was right there with Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neil (and a bottle of scotch?) during their epic budget battles"?  Or, "I was on an hour-long conference call with Bibi Netanyahu (Israeli PM) and the President and we're all in complete agreement...." 

I think that "complete agreement with Israel" reference probably reassured the Jewish community, too.  And correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Florida have a sizable Jewish community?  Twenty nine electoral vote Florida.  Smooth.

Paul Ryan is a numbers man; a budget, Medicare and Social Security expert.  While very important stuff, it's also very boring to talk about.  It's all based on "projections" and "assumptions", and with accounting being such a fraudulent practice today, can easily be refuted.  It's a "He said, She said" argument that politicians have been throwing at us for so long they're hardly believable any more.   "Projections" are a tough sell.

Most awkward exchange:  Ryan sharing Gov. Romney's compassion for a family who had suffered through a horrible car crash, while Biden explained he WAS the family that suffered through a horrible car crash.  OUCH!

Best zingers:  When Ryan mentioned that Jack Kennedy cut taxes, Biden chimed in, "Oh, so now you're Jack Kennedy?"  Also, when Ryan explained how Romney mis-spoke when talking about the 47% quip, saying, "I'm sure you know what it's like to have your words come out not the way you meant for them to."  Haha!

While the red states are still red and the blue states are still blue, I think Joe Biden's performance probably picked up quite a few net votes for the Democrats.  This is going to make for an interesting finish come November.

S

Retirement

I've had several comments recently asking why I'm building another house when I'm supposedly "retired"?  OK....here's the deal:  I'm frankly not sure what to do with myself.  

While I'm retired, K isn't.  She's up at 6 AM and I'm not far behind. I like to watch the news, but after watching for an hour or so they start repeating themselves. I live in a nice apartment (by choice) because there is no....NO....maintenance.  Which also means I have no yard to "putter" in or garden to grow, not that I would if I had the space anyway.

I take the dog on a long walk every day, weather permitting, and I regularly check email / internet, but neither requires that much time.  And of course I read... A LOT.  Maybe a volunteer opportunity will present itself one day, but it isn't here yet.

I have for 30 years done all the household grocery shopping, and I actually enjoy it.  Because I have the time I've taken over the majority of laundry chores, too, which is really a non-event.  (We have machines that do most of the work.)  We have a housekeeper because 1.  I don't clean bathrooms (this goes back to my bachelor days); and 2.  Geneva has become almost like family, and she depends on us for part of her income.  She stays!

Regarding work....for 30+ years Bro and I have had a good working relationship:  I handled operations, and he handled the office.  He really doesn't have a solid understanding of what holds the roof up.  I told him that after I retire I'd still come in to take care of the early phase of construction (foundation, framing, mechanicals, etc), then he could take over more.  I'm still allowed to make a few $$$ on top of my Social Security, so this works out just fine for both of us.

Over this recession I've sat around for long stretches at a time, which made me look forward to the next small job.  I like having something to do, without having anything I HAVE to do.  (I don't ask for much, huh?)  Maybe over time I'll learn how to whittle or rock or build ships inside little bottles, but not yet.  I'm still a rookie retiree.

S

I believe I hear the fat woman singing....

....and I don't think Mitt Romney likes what he's hearing.

Various polls are now saying Willard "the Mitt" Romney is losing ground in the few critical up-for-grab states that are going to decide who will be our next President.  Sure, there are numerous things that could turn his campaign around, but as I see it, they are all outside his control.

Brick Obama could have a brain fart during the debates, but I think he's too smart for that.  Israel could turn Tehran into a smoking hole, causing them to close the Strait of Hormuz.  Gas goes up to $8 a gallon, and Obama could be sending out resumes.  Who knows?  Unemployment could take a huge leap up, but with holiday hiring now kicking off, that doesn't seem likely. 

So where did Romney go wrong?  As I've said for months, most Americans don't want an "extreme" candidate from either end of the spectrum.  Remember the extremely liberal Democratic Party of the 1980's?  The Republican's ultra-conservative Tea Party of today is that far to the right.  Many middle-class mature voters are turned off by those types.  Why didn't Mitt move towards the center?  

Instead he picked lightning rod Paul Ryan for a running mate, IMO a bad mistake.  Seniors see him as the guy who's gonna mess with their Medicare and Social Security.  Even though Ryan said nothing for them would change, seniors don't believe him.  It's sort of like how, when one company buys another, they always say, "No operational changes are expected."  

Yeah, right.  Six months later divisions have been sold-off, pensions and health care have been overhauled for the worse, and a few more pink slips are passed out every Friday.  That's how many seniors see Paul Ryan.  And just coincidentally, battle-ground states Ohio and Florida are loaded with seniors.

And the "47%" quip, the "my wife has two Cadillacs", and the "I don't know anything about NASCAR but several of my friends own teams" hasn't exactly made folks want to invite Mitt and Ann over for hot dogs and a friendly game of backyard horse shoes.  There's just no "warm fuzzy".

Nope, I don't think Mitt Romney has enough time left to distance himself from the Tea Party "Young Guns" and reinvent himself as a moderate (that he probably really is).  I guess we can read the expert's election post mortem three months from now and see if my analysis was on target or not.  One thing no one can argue with is this has been a ridiculously expensive, nasty election.  Can you imagine the free-for-all in 2016?

S

TAXPAYER RIPOFF ALERT

According to a recent USA Today report 21,000 retired federal workers receive a lifetime government pension (from YOU, the taxpayer) of $100,000 or more per year.

Those would include 326 DEA agents, 237 IRS investigators, 186 FBI agents, 444 Social Security agents, and...wait for it...714 retired postal workers.  POSTAL WORKERS for cryin' out loud!  One retired Smithsonian zoologist receives a $162,000 annual lifetime pension, and six other retired federal workers receive over $200,000 per year for life!

Gimme a second to regain my composure.... *deep breath*

By comparison, consider this:  The average federal pension is $32,824.  The average state and local government pension is $24,373.  The average social security recipient receives $14,760.  (The absolute maximum a social security recipient can receive is $30,156.)

Want a bit more sand kicked in your face?  The average federal employee retired at age 59.4 years old, and had served for 27.8 years (2006 statistics).  Full Social Security eligibility for the rest of us isn't until age 65-67. 

True, years ago government salaries were below private sector pay, which is why the retirement benefits were more generous, but those days are long gone.  Today federal government employees make 25-33% MORE than their friends in the private sector for comparable work.

Here's my point:  With a trillion dollar federal deficit every year as far into the future as we can see, and with virtually everything on the table for possible cuts, why aren't federal pay and benefit reforms on the table, too?  (If there is a major restructuring underway now that I'm not aware of, please enlighten me.)

IMO federal employee pay and benefits should be brought to parity with those in the private sector.  Pay, benefits, pension, retirement age....everything!  Why should civil servants have it SO much better than the taxpayers who are paying them? 

I suggest you contact your congressman and register your outrage!  Oh, wait....he's an overpaid federal employee, too.  (And besides, right now he's on vacation.)   *sigh*

S

EDIT:  Let me add this for the benefit of a retired federal employee friend of mine....once you're retired, your pension should not be tampered with....with one caveat.  If some day Congress deems it necessary to cut existing Social Security recipient's benefits, then the same % cuts should apply to retired federal worker's benefits, too.

A couple of questions....

It's obvious that Social Security and especially Medicare are going to be the hot button issues of the upcoming presidential election.  It's all about cutting the deficit, and these two things will bear the brunt of any budget reforms.

My questions are:

Are you reasonably happy with Medicare as it exists now, or are you just comfortable with it because it is a known quantity?  

Do you just accept Medicare with all it's flaws because you are afraid of the alternative?

Are you afraid a voucher-type senior health care program will force seniors to pay money out of pocket (that they may or may not have) in order to get comparable coverage to what Medicare offers now?  In other words, in your mind, is a voucher-type system a step backwards?

WHAT was he thinking??

Can anyone explain to me Mitt Romney's grand strategy in choosing Paul Ryan as a running mate?  If he has one at all it baffles me.  All he did was solidify those conservative / Tea Party folks who were going to vote for him anyway.  He might now be able to bring in Ryan's home state of Wisconsin, but it will probably cost him Florida and several other states with large senior populations.

And politicians usually like to talk in vague, opaque language, giving out as few details as possible so the opposition will have a difficult time pinning them down with specifics to pound on.  Not this time!  Ryan has a detailed, articulate budget plan that will be a lightning rod issue.  Again, those who were already going to vote conservative will, while those who weren't still won't.  But now many of those absolutely vital moderate swing voters, many of them elderly, will have reason (Medicare / Social Security) to vote Democratic.  You just don't make the elderly's Medicare or Social Security benefits the centerpiece of a campaign, especially if it is to "reform" it.

This violates all rules of general elections.  You appeal to your core supporters in the primaries, and then move towards the middle when appealing to the larger population.  Just watch....Obama will appeal to the moderates with reassuring words while criticizing Romney as an extremist, and Romney will have to distance himself from his own Veep's controversial budget plan.  He should have brought Ryan on board later after the election (if he won) as a cabinet member.  

This is just bizarre.

S