Speed Gibson

Santa gave me a new ceiling fan for the back bedroom / computer room where I blog. The existing one's lights had gone out one by one, and no it wasn't the bulbs. I'll do an autopsy later, but Git-R-Done I done did!

I've done a number of ceiling fan installations over the years, and no two have been at all alike. None of them has ever gone in easy. Sometimes parts are missing, sometimes the directions are wrong, often the various tolerances accumulate in one direction to prevent an occasional screw from going through all the way, two today. Today's biggest challenge were the screws themselves, with hybrid slot/phillips heads that none of my screwdrivers could quite handle. I checked the box, sure enough, from Wisconsin, a blue state.

What really strikes me is how complicated this process is. Two screws to mount the bracket to the ceiling outlet box. Four screws to attach a canopy to the bracket, which another three screws attach it to the main motor housing. The 5 blades take 25 screws, 10 of which you have to do looking up at the mounted motor unit. These mounted blades now get in your way to attach a lighting base with three screws. A nice nylon connector handles the control wiring, but the lighting itself still requites wire nuts. Three more screws attach the bulb assembly to the base. The whole project, including taking down the old one, deciphering the instructions, repeated searches for another screwdriver that might work better, searching for dropped screws in the carpet, swearing, and cleanup ran about four hours.

There's a market opportunity for someone out there to sell an integrated unit. Mount the bracket, attach the wires, twist the motor unit on, secure with 3-4 screws, attach the blades, twist the light unit on, secure with 2-3 screws, snap on the chain handles.

Meanwhile, whoever these idiots are that design the current offerings should have their own level reserved for them in Dante's Inferno.

Beside not blogging on Nick Coleman, I hereby resolve to lose significant weight in 2005, at least 64 pounds.

Despite many previous efforts, some quite successful in fact, I now find myself 4 pounds beyond my old record that got me started dieting nearly 20 years ago. The holidays are over. It's time to try again.

I don't consider my previous diets failures. I now know a number of ways that don't work for me, and I have become an expert at calorie counting. It's like Edison and the light bulb.

I always try something new, and this year it will be going more public - by blogging. I will be blogging at least once a week on my progress, with links to a personal web site with the full history.

I will appreciate any positive feedback of course. Better still, if you find I'm off course pretend I'm Nick Coleman and fisk me back into righteousness.

Happy New Year all!

Hugh Hewitt's Weekly Standard column entitled "A Unified Theory of the Old Media Collapse" has immediate corroboration in the Star Tribune today. At the bottom of the Commentary page is an article headlined "We may never know what happened in the Ohio vote."

Hugh's premise is that the media has been bending over backward for so long to report minority viewpoints, right or wrong, they can now no longer straighten up to acknowledge the majority. Hence the rise of Rush, Fox News, and the blogosphere who do, along with many of the same minority viewpoints.

Halvorson and Lund contend there are enough questions about the Ohio vote and its counting to delay the January 6 Electoral College vote. But the points raised fall at least one order of magnitude short of closing the 100,000 plus vote gap. As with many government conspiracy theories, a deliberate fraud of that size requires a large number of conspirators, all of whom must remain silent. And if you have to quote Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, who has tilted at many other windmills in the past, you haven't much of a case.

Besides, how is John Kerry going to win if he's lost 32 votes so far from Democrat electors who can't fill out the ballot correctly? No, we know what happened in Ohio. President Bush won, well beyond a reasonable doubt.

Going back to Hugh's point, there are no doubt dozens of articles floating about that the Star Tribune could have selected instead of this piece, but this is the one that fits the Unified Theory template. By printing a specious, unsupportable theory of the few, they the Star Tribune demonstrate their open minds, their fairness, their objectivity. It serves no significant public purpose; it serves only their egos.

As I wrote in a comment on another blog, I think it's time to declare victory over Nick Coleman and move on. Yes, it's great fun fisking his rants, even writing a Christmas carol.

But as of January 1, 2005, Speed Gibson will be Nick Coleman free. His latest column demonstrated once again that he has nothing important to say, assuming it makes any sense at all. Jim Boyd had the sense to quit while he was behind, and therefore remains on double secret probation.

Instead, I plan to study Lori Sturdevant's writings. I've looked over a few of her past columns, which are much more civil and informative, but with many DFL tenets presented as facts. As the challenger always says on "Iron Chef", I will do my best.

The earthquake and tidal waves after Christmas remind us that the year isn't over as far as saying what people might say is the biggest story of 2004. But I'm going out on a limb now.

Such a story has to be both important and widely unexpected. Let me clarify the latter criterion. Some number of natural disasters occur every year, so while the specifics of SE Asia's tragedy were certainly unanticipated, the general pattern is not. Whether Bush won re-election or not, there was significant expectation either way.

No, Rathergate is my choice for story of the year. Yes, year after year we complain about bias and false information in the MSM, but who could have predicted that one of the big three anchors would fall so far so fast? A man planning some sort of graceful, eloquent retirement in 2005 decides to publish those infamous forged memos, despite the source and despite the questions even CBS's small amount of verification raised.

Dan Rather isn't stupid. IMO, he knew they were to good to be true, and very likely were at least unverifyable. IMO, Dan Rather parlayed what he assumed was his unassailable reputation with President Bush's indefensible record as he saw it. IMO, what Dan Rather counted on most was the brotherhood of the MSM protecting him, and many of his brothers are still trying. What he didn't count on was this new media force - the blogs, among them Minnesota's own Powerline.

Whether this affected the election we may never know. But this scandal clearly marked a watershed, where the bias of the MSM crossed the line on such a large scale that it forced the early, undignified retirement of a seemingly invulnerable MSM icon.

Shot in the Dark probes one of the great questions of our new century: who should go to college? As Mitch notes, with schools staffed with four year plus degreed teachers, it's not surprising that "why, everyone, of course!" is their collective answer. Obviously that's not real life. Somebody has to pour the steel, wax the cars, clear the sewer lines, and drive the taxicabs. No disrespect here. In fact, I would argue that too many jobs ostensibly requiring college degrees really do not. Or they wouldn't if a high school diploma was what it used to be before grade inflation and political correctness began their inexorable conversion of this once valuable document to a certificate of attendance.

You're all met "John." He's doing well in your company, a manager or better, and is working on his MBA at night. But on those occasional times you work with him on a project, you come away wondering who he's been blackmailing to get this far. He can't reason, add, or spell, or write a coherent memo let alone be trusted with an important contract. But trusted with an important contract he somehow is, one of your department's this time.

You've also met "Marcia." She supervises your shipping department, has been for four years now, making maybe $15-20 an hour. She started here right after high school, but has hit the glass ceiling, one that requires a Bachelor's of anything from almost anywhere to go higher. She has many ideas on that new contract with a major carrier, but she's not invited to the meetings. "John" is handling it.

"John" is deadwood, but "Marcia" is the one considered unpromotable at this mythical but all-too-representative company. The difference? Sheepskin. The truth? You don't really need to go to college to succeed. Bill Gates is but one of many, many CEO's with some or no college. Steven Spielberg eventually earned his B.A., but he directed and produced many memorable films first.

So why do so many companies require that B.A. or B.S. whether job-related or not? I think mostly because a high school diploma just isn't worth much anymore. They are readily granted, even to semi-illiterates lest we hurt their self-esteem or the school's reputation. Employers have to go up a level to at least a two year degree just to thin the herd of applicants all waving their high school diplomas. If nothing else, you filter out or correct those reported 30% of freshmen needing remedial work in English or Mathematics.

Have a look at this MPR piece on the subject. At Century College, 87 percent of their students need remedial math.


"I've never read a full book before," says college student Josephine Kuntz. "You go through high school you can get away with it. When you get to college, it's like you gotta do it."


Mitch is right, we need to return to the days when all educational opportunities are on the table.

In my so far futile search for a better term than "privitization" of Social Security, the best I have so far is to parallel the steady transition from pensions to 401K programs.

Company pensions are generally termed a "defined benefit" meaning your service is somehow evaluated to determine the amount paid you for some fixed term or life. The 401K alternative is a "defined contribution" program, meaning that some amount is contributed to you now instead of a promised pension later.

The term "401K" is widely understood - and liked. Maybe a similar name like "402K" or "501K" or "42U" (4 percent to you) could be coined, and repeated often to get people saying and thinking along 401K lines.

I happened to hear a familiar Beach Boys Christmas number this afternoon. Before long, another set of lyrics began creeping and crawling around in my head. So with apologies to Brian Wilson and Mike Love:

Well way downtown where the libs all head
There’s a paper printed there that you all have read.
And a real famous scribe who deems himself chic
And he tells us what to think at least three times a week.

It’s our little Saint Nick (Little Saint Nick)
He’s our little Saint Nick (Little Saint Nick)

Such a genteel soul, we call him our Saint Nick
But he’ll smear David Strom with his style so slick.
He’s kind to his own, all the facts he’ll conceal
But when Westy fires back, man just watch him squeal!

It’s our little Saint Nick (Little Saint Nick)
He’s our little Saint Nick (Little Saint Nick)

Write on, Coleman!
Write on, Coleman!
Write on, Coleman!
Write on, Coleman!
(He don’t know nothin’!)

He’s putting out columns he works hard to perfect
For a half a dozen blogs and the NARN to correct.
He thinks he knows stuff, but he’s so in the dark
That he doesn’t even know that he’s jumped the shark.

It’s our little Saint Nick (Little Saint Nick)
He’s our little Saint Nick (Little Saint Nick)

Ooo – ooo - ooo, Merry Christmas Saint Nick
(Coleman writes this stuff all year)


.. Repeat and fade…

Scott Peterson has been found guilty of murder. The judge makes the final decision, but even if he sentences Peterson to death as the jury authorized, he will likely live another 15-20 years spent in nearly endless appeals. A wimpy governor could later commute that sentence to life without parole, if there truly is such a thing any more.

Personally, I am uncomfortable with the death penalty. But if he lives, he will likely be interviewed many times over his remaining years, continuing his "celebrity" status. Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber was executed in 2001, only about six years after that horrible act. At least he's no longer available for the press and sympathizers, and he has apparently not been missed. (His partner Terry Nichols received a life sentence.)

I think we could compromise with a maximum security, minimal contact prison reserved exclusively for such cases. You walk in the front door, but a coffin is the only way out. Press contact is all but prohibited. There is no law library, no exercise gym, no movies, no TV except alternating half hours of Chris Matthews and Judy Woodruff. You can listen to the radio if you behave, read some donated books. The food is somewhere between military field rations and soylent green, nutritious to a fault. No ice. No air conditioning.

There's no aspirin, no surgery, no cancer treatments, and no dental care. Infections are dressed and anti-biotics used only as necessary to keep the facility disinfected. You won't be executed, but chances are you'll not live as long as you otherwise might have. If your appendix goes, too bad. You chose not to live as a civilized man, and civilization has now decided to live without you.

So if you commit murder, you get maybe five years from the date of the crime, then you are sent to what I hope you'll consider to be a hell hole. If not, we'll add Christiane Amanpour to your TV lineup.

As many have already linked, Powerline has posted a well-written recap regarding of the Minneapolis Star Tribune in general and its columnist Nick Coleman in particular. But so far, Mr. Coleman seems to be in no danger. Why? Surely his editors know as surely as we do that his work is flawed, even ridiculed at times.

Let's start at the top: the newspaper business is dying, which I truly regret. Circulation is slowly falling at almost every big city daily, dragging down advertising revenue with it. I may be wrong, but my guess is that the lost subscribers are at the right edge of the bell curve of its readership. The new media of talk radio, Fox News, thoughtful books, and now the blogosphere now provide a solid alternative for them that doesn't require the suspension of intellect.

This leaves the papers with an ever smaller, ever more concentrated liberal base. To keep these readers happy, we continue to get columnists like Nick Coleman, who if anything becomes more valuable to the paper. Carefully selected dissent is allowed here and there, but mostly as fodder for the liberal readers to convince others that they're reading a "fair and balanced" newspaper.

So, the paper drifts ever to the left as it dies, the result being absurd pieces like today's "Why is Abe Lincoln like John Kerry?" A collection of "so what?" statistics designed to minimize President George W. Bush's re-election, it's just balm to soothe the frustrated liberal base that cannot understand why the 51% in Jesusland don't understand. But there it is, not really news at all, but published on page one above the fold as if it were.

As I said, I truly regret this. It seems so unnecessary. Even a modest move back toward the center would surely reclaim a significant portion of the lost readership. Maybe it will take one major paper to try it and prove it works. Maybe the St. Paul Pioneer Press has already started.

The Star Tribune has announced that Kate Parry will be our new "Reader Representative" replacing "ombudsman" Lou Gelfand. She starts taking feedback Dec. 13, and will begin publishing a weekly column in January.

I wonder if she wants a piece of the Nick Coleman action. Her eMail address is readerrep (at) startribune.com.

Wow, People's Republic of Minnesota wasn't kidding about the major assault on our wallets and our common sense by Minneapolis Star Tribune today (Dec 12 Op Ex). There's really nothing new in any of these articles, just the usual excuses for raising taxes.

I wonder: does the Star Tribune have a conflict of interest here?

By definition, public sector money is spent more "publicly" than private money. Even without the usual attendant mismanagement of those funds, there' s usually a fair amount of news that's fit to print. Money spent by companies and private charities is, well, a bit boring by comparison, and requires much more work by journalists.

Suppose we go back in time when inflation-adjusted per capita state and local taxes were half what they are today. I in fact have an old Minneapolis Star from those days, and it's quite different. It has many small, concise articles about largely small matters, because government had such a much smaller role in our lives.

For example, when the Minneapolis Public Schools falter, many headlines follow. And falter they must it seems, given the lack of accountability we currently allow most of our public agencies.

But suppose there were no public schools in Minneapolis, replaced by numerous private schools who compete for public vouchers controlled by the parents. There might be a problem here and there, but the free market would solve most of them before the newspaper even could be made aware of them.

So, I contend that yes, the Star Tribune does benefit from a larger public sector.

Many thanks to Leanne Adbnor and Tim Penny for a very well written argument for Social Security reform that includes some privitazation. Leanne Abdnor is president of For Our Grandchildren, a Social Security reform group. Tim Penny, former Democrat and Independence Party candidate for Governor in 2002, represented southeastern Minnesota for 12 years in Congress. Both served on President Bush's Commission to Strengthen Social Security.

They correct many of the misconceptions floating about. For example, the "transition cost" of privitazation (there must be a better word!) is $700 billion over 10 years, not the $1 trillion guestimate that has ballooned to $2 trillion of late. Unlike medical programs, the demographics and financials are well-understood, so there is no reason to accept these inflated scare figures.

The full commission report is available at the Commission's web site.

This was the title of an article by Margaret Carlson of Time and CNN fame. I like Margaret Carlson in that I sense a great intellect that I hope will someday escape its liberal chains. Today she laments that, well, she said it best:

When [U. S. Supreme Court Justices] Rehnquist and Scalia go, the list of potential replacements will include women and blacks. There were none on the short list of Rather replacements, nor on NBC's, which had more time not to consider someone from outside the male preserve.

She says, quite correctly I believe, that there is a glass ceiling here that if anything, has become thicker of late. Brian Williams and John Roberts could be male models. A woman experienced enough to fit the "Cronkite model" will be "too old to be seen in public" which is unfortunate. It begs a larger question of just who is watching these handsome faces despite all the bias and fluff.

She takes a swipe at the bloggers, claiming they hounded Rather into early retirement, not his own ... misjudgment. But it's still a very good, very realistic perspective on the MSM.

Broadcast journalism is in a slump. The money's short, the prestige low, exotic foreign assignments over, unless you count Fallujah.

Still, we're likely to have a woman president before we have a woman anchor on the networks. About the time the network dinosaurs finally stumble into the tar pit, that's when a woman will finally sit first chair.

They've got us this time claims a Star Tribune Editorial (12/6):

Now British scientists have produced the first research tracing the human signature" in a particular weather pattern, and the conclusion is sobering: Greenhouse gases and other modern alterations to Earth's climate at least doubled the risk of Europe's long, lethal summer, the hottest recorded in at least 500 years. The new computer model also suggests that current trends may make half of European summers as hot or hotter within the next 40 years. By the end of the century, such a summer could rank as relatively mild.

The big problem with such efforts in the past is that the models continually predicted future effects many times those actually observed. Now they have it right they claim. I'm skeptical because you can always make a model complicated enough to explain the past, and if desired, what you expect in the near future.

A far better analysis and perspective, well worth reading is CLIMATE ALARM - Where Does it Come From by Prof. Richard S. Lindzen of MIT. He discusses global warming in terms of self-interested alarmists, and whether their alarms have scientific merit.

With respect to science, consensus is often simply a sop to scientific illiteracy. After all, if what you are told is alleged to be supported by all scientists, then why do you have to bother to understand it. You can simply go back to treating it as a matter of religious belief, and you never have to defend this belief except to claim that you are supported by all scientists except for a handful of corrupted heretics.

Professor Lindzen describes what he calls the repeating "iron triangle" of alarmism:

1. Scientists make meaningless or ambiguous statements.
   
2. Advocates and media translate statements into alarmist declarations.
   
3. Politicians respond to alarm by feeding scientists more money.
   

Lindzen adds:

Should the scientist ever feel guilt over the matter, it is assuaged by two irrestible factors:



• The advocates define public virtue.
  
• His administrators are delighted with the grant overhead.
  

The Professor appears to be the exception, and has provided an excellent example of critical thinking applicable to many other areas as well.

A much-revered book in my library is Dr. Thomas Sowell's The Vision of the Anointed. It explains so much of what goes on in politics and the media today.

Dr. Sowell also publishes a column that appears in Townhall.com. In his Dec. 6th column (Random Thoughts) is further proof, if any were needed, of his insight.

It is amazing how many people think that they can answer an argument by attributing bad motives to those who disagree with them. Using this kind of reasoning, you can believe or not believe anything about anything, without having to bother to deal with facts or logic.

Ah, remember the Star Tribune's lambasting of Senator Norm Coleman's call for Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the United Nations, to resign. It was all name calling. "What an embarrassment!" they concluded.

Only now the Democratic Leadership Council has seconded Mr. Coleman's motion, for the good of the U.N. they say. What names will the Star Tribune come up with this time? And will they have the courage to hurl them at one of their own?

Star Tribune Columnist Nick Coleman isn't the story here. He is but one of many liberals unhappy that the K-12 public schools cannot spend as much as they want. But every such thrust must be parried. The Legislature lost Republicans and Governor Pawlenty seems to have lost his courage of late.

So let's get to it, Coleman's latest jeremiad of Dec. 5:

We have reached a four-alarm crisis in the education of this state's children, and the people who should be responding to the fire -- the governor, the Legislature, local political leaders -- are shirking their duty.

No, they are doing worse than shirking. They are wrecking an education system that made Minnesota a leader.

The truth is, school spending is significantly higher even adjusted for inflation than just 10 years ago. And enrollment is about the same. If the funds were adequate in the 90's, they are adequate now.

It's also true that many districts are struggling financially. The revenues are there, so it must be a spending problem. The people who should be reigning these excesses in are the ones shirking their duty.

The night before the state budget forecast, the Minneapolis School District, rocked by mismanagement within and attacks from without, announced that 17 schools are marked for closure.

Mismanagement? Why, then, did they try to keep Dr. Carol Johnson? Why do they not let David Jennings do his job? Also, Mr. Coleman omits that enrollment has dropped signficantly in Minneapolis. But spending still grows. More money won't solve anything until these matters are settled.

And on the same night in St. Paul, Superintendent Patricia Harvey revealed that the largest district in the state faces a $24 million deficit -- on top of $50 million already cut over the past five years.

...

"We started out with these cuts as an opportunity to re-think," Harvey says. "And I will show our track record -- how we spend money -- to anyone. But we're past the surface. We're cutting bone and muscle. We're a business that's 87 percent people. What are we supposed to cut now? We could turn out the lights and not save the money we need to cover the deficit."

What are we supposed to cut now? People, of course. I'm not being cold or impertinent. Let's do what I call The Fredinburg Equation, using recent figures from a large suburban district.

Average spending per student: $7100. Average class size: 31. Average spending per class is therefore about $220,000. Subtract 15% non-payroll, and you have about $187,000. Subtract a full time average teacher with benefits ($58k) and we have $129,000 in remaining payroll.

I counted all the teachers, principals, counselors, nurses, custodians, secretaries, librarians, cooks, etc in my high school yearbook, and estimated the bus drivers. I found roughly 1 support person (full time equivalent) for every 2 teachers. Let's say today that's now 1:1, and that they average the same pay as a teacher, though probably less.

We now have $71,000 left, and apparently for not for mission critical purposes. Yes, there's plenty of room to cut here. A good place to start is with the bloated number of students said to have "special education" requirements, today well over 100,00 out of 850,000 in Minnesota.

Every business in a "turnaround situation" faces these same challenges. You have a staff of people that do various tasks for your organization. These tasks all have value as do the people who perform them, but some tasks are clearly more important than others to the profitability of the business. If the cuts required would leave the business unprofitable, it goes out of business.

The same should apply to the schools. Prioritize the tasks being performed. Fund the list as far down as income permits, cut the rest. Look for out-sourcing opportunities, such as in accounting, systems, and building maintenance. Weed out the poor performers in your organization.

But if you still can't meet your obligations, including those imposed by the Legislature and Congress, you, too, should go out of business rather than pretend to do the job you are not doing.

Unlike Doug at Bogus Gold, I watched the Vikings lose to Chicago. The only upside was that the post-game call-in show on KFAN got some passionate callers. Several fans decided this loss should be the final nail in Mike Tice's Head Coaching coffin.

I couldn't help wondering how many of these adamant fans that demand accountability and/or results from their sports teams, are wholly unconcerned about, say, their local public school district. Test scores continue to fall, spending continues to rise even when enrollment drops, and there is no real accountability for any of this.

The Vikings season will end at Philadelphia if not sooner regardless. But poor performance by our public schools is an opportunity lost forever.

Maybe we should televise what goes on in our classrooms on Sunday afternoons.

CQ and Powerline have already rebuffed the 12/4 Star Tribune Editorial "Going after Annan" today. On the NARN radio show, they went further, noticing as I did the extraordinary vocabulary used.

"Good old Norm;" it begins. This is disrespectful, regardless of the context. "Good old Paul;" would have been equally disrespectful of the late Senator Wellstone even if what followed was highly complimentary. Adults acknowledge the titles of others, usually at their first mention. Adults also do not assume such familiarity in a formal setting. Former Senator Walter Mondale did this, continually addressing Mr. Coleman as "Norman" in the 2002 debate, drawing considerable outrage. But no adults were used in the writing of this editorial.

If you remember the Star Tribune's endorsement of Senator John Kerry for President, you will remember the remarkable choice of words, like "perverted" and "devious" to describe President George W. Bush.

Today, we have "sordid move" and "venomous fury" and "incendiary rhetoric" and "juicy rhetoric" and a grunting "What an embarrassment." at the end. In their paroxysm, they couldn't even remember if this was about oil-for-food or food-for-oil. Now that's embarrassing.

I'm all for a little righteous outrage, but shouldn't you be sure of your facts first? "Note that no one has the slightest whiff of proof that [U.N. Secretary General Kofi] Annan knew about, condoned, or profited from this scandal." False as stated; there are plenty of whiffs. As Captain Ed notes:

The man who Kofi Annan appointed to run the program, and who only reported to Annan, became one of the corruption's beneficiaries, scoring millions on under-the-table oil futures for his astigmatism on OFF corruption. And let's not forget that Annan's own son, Kojo, continued to receive kickbacks from a Swiss firm implicated in the corruption well after he supposedly terminated his relationship there.

And how about some documentation of Mr. Annan being a "splendid" public servant?

The Star Tribune did get one thing right: "This is really all about Annan's refusal to toe the Bush line on Iraq..." John Kerry was obviously going to win and steer the ship of state back to the safe waters near the U.N. Plaza - only he failed, for reasons the Democrats are still having trouble accepting. The United Nations represents nearly all that is liberal, second only to our own Metropolitan Council.

But now, not only is the U.N.'s advice not sought, their precious U.N. is under attack, facing the biggest scandal in its history, one with its roots in the Clinton Administration. There is nothing the liberals can do but shoot the messenger.

As they promised, the Minneapolis Star Tribune published on Monday 11/29 their "safer" plans for saving Social Security. As I predicted, yes they recommended tax increases. However, they also discussed a modest decrease in benefits and investing in private markets to get more investment income.

The decrease in benefits proposal required no courage, since Democrats and RINOs will never this happen. Investing in the private markets is fine for individuals, but not government. Fearing that politics would creep in, forcing investments in favored (and usually weak) companies, Republicans and some wise Democrats will block this. But the tax increases, both in percent and in annual cap are all the Strib really want anyway.

Tuesday, they followed with a polemic about Social Security's noble origin and responsible stewardship over the years. As I said in post 1, they do not understand the system, including its history.

There was no groundswell for such a program in the 1930's. It was just one of many New Deal programs. At the time, it paid very little, to very few given the life expectancy then. Over the years, benefits have risen dramatically and the system "expanded" to provide other benefits, such as the fraud-riddled disability program. And every time there's a "crisis"? Taxes are raised in what are characterized as "difficult" decisions. The maximum FICA contribution was less than $100 in 1958. Now it's over $5,000. The Star Tribune is suggesting about a $7,000 maximum as a target. Even a minimum wage worker would lose about $200 a year their way.

No, the truly difficult and truly responsible decision is to privatize Social Security.