Charlie Rose

NeilMacCallister  02/08/2011 06:49 AM Report

Dear Mr. Goolsbee,

A lot of government economists have "studied" our nation's Social Security insurance program. This includes yourself, our current President Barack Obama, and even a 16-member panel gathered together by our then-President George Bush.

What is the hold-up on taking any actual action?

According to Gallup/USAToday/CNN polls, we already know that the majority of Americans are in favor of lifting the cap which excludes many high-earning Americans from having to contribute an equal share of their annual income into our supposedly common Social Security taxes; and that most Americans are also for means-testing the awarding-out of payments from this "insurance plan designed to protect against old-age destitution".

When can we stop spending taxpayer money for more Congressional Budget Office studies, and just do what "We the People" already know is the agreed-upon thing to do, as evidenced by these polls?

And can we also have our government employees soon start paying those same Social Security taxes as do the rest of us? (..You know, there sure are a lot of government workers around nowdays!)

If you have any answers, I have the time to hear them. You see, I didn't get one of those 36,000 jobs you claim were created last month.

Oh well, ..Thank you very much anyway!

robdverity  02/07/2011 05:11 PM Report

RE - You continue to rail for productivity, while ignoring techno-increased productivity that reduces manual efforts. As these modes increase, income distribution will of necessity encroach on or at least lean toward a form of socialism.

REMant  02/07/2011 01:09 PM Report

No matter what the number of jobs is, more important is their sustainability, which has to depend on real productivity and not the development of bubbles, which unfortunately, I think we are going to see until Mr Bernanke, himself, leaves. There is no doubt in my mind that the Fed and the other central banks are, in the last analysis, the source of under- and unemployment, regardless of how fast the Chinese, et al, develop. Every bubble creates more consolidations and pink slips, more disparity in wealth, higher deficits, and a weaker dollar, which has now lost about 100% of the purchasing power it had when the Fed was created a century ago. We are so very clever; other countries cut wages and salaries and budgets and have riots, while we just imperceptibly cut everyone's standard of living. Altho this increases cries for even cheaper money and lower taxes, along with govt handouts, it is in the name of improvement.

In the past two years, companies have gotten into the black and even run up profits, but with a smaller workforce, and consumer base, which could only have been the case if the dollars were cheaper. But there is no particular incentive to hire more ppl, unless there is something it is felt they can do, which has to come from somewhere other than the Fed, and if the Fed continues to make it appear profitable not to do that, given typical American short-sightedness, they won't. It's not just that we need more productivity, but we need to employ ppl who will be productive. Even so, the admin's position, that government must take the lead in research and development, leaving aside that it panders to a good part of that party's base, is a questionable proposition. I don't doubt that the govt's labs, ARPA, NIH, and the rest haven't done well in this respect, nor the grants to colleges and universities, but innovation has consistently come in this country from those with far fewer credentials and connections, who have the drive and determination to better themselves. Nevertheless, where we seem to fall down in particular is in the utilization of technology, and it must again be the lack of incentive provided by Fed policy, and the antagonisms generated by increasing poverty and resource depletion as a result of it. None of this, of course, is made any better by the fact that the developing world undersells us, which, however, they have every right to do until some kind of parity is reached.

Despite what the admin has said repeatedly, incidentally, we have an effective corporate tax rate in the range of our competitors, tho this is enjoyed unevenly. The rate is 35%, but many large corps pay more like 20 due to tax preferences. GE, according to Reuters, paid just 14. (No wonder they admire Reagan.) Altho the avg works out to be about the same as our competitors, it is blatantly unfair, like many of the middle class's tax expenditures. Retailers and the service sector generally pay more, as has oil. That has also driven many cos abroad. IMHO the tax code is such a mess that no attempt should be made to "fix" it. It should simply be abolished and a flat rate established for people and corps, or even for ppl alone, because taxes eventually fall on them anyway. As long as ppl don't benefit from govt largess unequally it won't matter if the rate is flat. If the Congress feels it can't make these decisions, someone is going to come along and take the responsibility from them, as was done with money.