Really? My fuel costs on my current job is $20 a day. Your commute must bee tiny. I hope you don't try to overcompensate.

I only drive about one tankful a week. Some of that is for fun runs, so the mileage ain't so good.

Swell. Now those damn Democrats'll be wanting to lower the dropout rate.

I forgot Medicare was also in this folder. Doh.

So forgive the redundancy:

"WASHINGTON, Feb. 1 - Michael O. Leavitt, the secretary of health and human services, called Tuesday for sweeping changes in Medicaid that would cut payments for prescription drugs and give states new power to reduce or reconfigure benefits for millions of low-income people.

In his first speech as secretary, Mr. Leavitt also said it should be more difficult for elderly people to qualify for Medicaid by transferring assets to their children.

"Medicaid must not become an inheritance protection plan," Mr. Leavitt said at a convention of health care executives here. "Right now, many older Americans take advantage of Medicaid loopholes to become eligible for Medicaid by giving away assets to their children. There is a whole industry that actually helps people shift costs to the taxpayer."

Medicaid helps pay the bills for two-thirds of the 1.6 million people in nursing homes in the United States.

Mr. Leavitt said President Bush wanted to join Congress in an effort to rein in the cost of Medicaid, the nation's largest health insurance program. Medicaid spending has shot up 63 percent in the last five years. Federal and state outlays now total more than $300 billion a year.

Anticipating the proposals by the Bush administration, many governors have banded together in a bipartisan effort to stave off restrictions on federal Medicaid spending. In a letter to Congress in December, the National Governors Association said it was unacceptable to shift federal costs to the states as part of a deficit-reduction strategy.

Meanwhile, some governors, including George E. Pataki of New York, have turned to Medicaid in trying to address their own budget pressures. Some states have dropped recipients, set strict limits on spending and reduced benefits....

The Congressional Budget Office said last week that under current law, with no changes, Medicaid would grow an average 7.8 percent a year in the coming decade, compared with an average 7.9 percent a year in the prior decade.

Mr. Leavitt said the federal government could save $15 billion in the next 10 years if it stopped "overpaying for prescription drugs."...."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/02/national/02health.html

Or reduce the abortion rate.

Not to worry. We got millions of illegals streaming in to take care of any problems attributable solely to underpopulation.

Are they paying into SS ?

Well that's a long argument. I wonder what the numbers are. One of the (many) problems with this particular illegal immigration is that much if not most of the money earned here goes south of the border.

The countries may as well merge. I will not fall off my chair backwards to find that in a few decades that is overtly or effectively what has occurred.

The point of the current discussion was the size of the SS paying workforce compared to the SS collecting force, I thought.

I understand that. I used to know what the figures were, but don't feel like looking it up and didn't want to guess backwards wrong.

However, I will go out on a limb to say that the costs to government outweigh -- and then some -- any uncollected input into the SS tank.

Point is it doesn't matter how much the popluation grows with illegals, since they are not putting anything into the pot. The original point still stands, then.

Which original point was that? I thre the "illegal immigrant" in because it is often mentioned vis-a-vis population decline in precisely this discussion. That's all. Not loaded or really making any other point, and not even carrying out what the point relative to SS may actually be.

Good grief.

Some do pay in with fake numbers and won't be able to collect legally.

Could you have them send it directly to me for distribution?

Just gotta file your fake claim on their fake number and maybe the gov will send you a fake check.

I can do that. My cat has an American Express card, maybe get him a SS card.

"The president has to decide whether he wants to take the lead in fixing Social Security or whether he wants to take the lead in effect destroying the most successful social program in history," said Schumer, who is chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee as well as a member of the Finance Committee.


http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050202/D880I3K81.html

Strange.

For years I've heard from the Democrats say that there is nothing wrong with Social Security.

Even a few days ago, they've all been saying Social Security is in sound financial shape.

Now Chuckie Schumer says Social Security needs to be fixed?

Strange days indeed.

As has been stated before. The ratio of workers to retirees is much more than a OASI payroll tax shortfall issue. Somebodies got to wipe them boomer butts in the ol' folks home.

Well, let's take our CM's state:

"It is a popular notion that illegal immigrants cost more in services than they pay for. Supporters of Proposition 200 contend illegal immigration costs the state a fortune in medical services. But none of the estimates on immigrant costs include the Social Security windfall known as the earnings suspense file.

Nor do they include money withheld from the checks of illegal immigrants for state income tax.

According to the director of the Arizona Department of Revenue, it's a sizable amount. More important, it's growing.

The director, J. Elliot Hibbs, and his staff used figures from the Social Security Administration and the earnings suspense file to calculate how much illegal immigrant money is sitting in the state treasury.

The file is an account that tracks irregular Social Security contributions. These are accounts that include duplicate Social Security numbers, mismatched names, bad addresses and other oddities.

The account has $376 billion and is growing at the rate of $6 billion a year. The Social Security Administration estimates that about half the contributions are from illegal immigrants.

Hibbs notes Arizona is in the second-highest tier of states that are receiving income tax contributions from illegal immigrants. The first tier includes states in which you might expect to find many illegal immigrants. They are in this order: California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois and New Jersey.

The Social Security Administration estimated two years ago that rapid immigrant growth in Arizona, Georgia and North Carolina was such that these states might have surpassed New Jersey in Social Security contributions.

Hibbs and his staff estimate that in 2000 Arizona withheld between $4 million and $5.3 million from the paychecks of illegal immigrants. In the nine states noted above, one can safely assume illegal immigrants contribute at least $45 million a year in income tax withholding...."

http://mobile.azstarnet.com/sn/pdaopinion/41463.html

I'd research that way more extensively before reaching any conclusions, Birdie. I've read long, long pieces in the California press, and not of any particular ideology, that don't just suggest but outright claim that the net costs to legal citizens and government is enormous.

Net cost sure maybe. But SS isn't in the general fund, right. <rofl>

The illegals seem to be doing a good job of proping SS right now.

'Course Bushie's plan to semi-legalize them might change that - big time.

"...The real threat to Social Security doesn't come from giving young people this opportunity. The threat comes from a Bush administration plan to load illegal immigrants into the Social Security system, an idea that would skyrocket costs and bankrupt the system at the same time baby boomers flood into their benefit years.

The code word for this racket is "totalization." The United States has totalization agreements with 20 countries, which have been reasonable and uncontroversial, but totalization with Mexico is TOTALLY different.

The idea behind totalization with other countries is to ensure a pension to those few individuals who work legally in two countries by "totalizing" their payments into the pension systems of both countries. All existing totalization agreements are with developed nations whose retirement benefits are on par with U.S. benefits, and the affected employees work for companies that have been paying taxes into the other countries' retirement systems.

Workers from those other 20 countries come with employer documents verifying that they are authorized to work in the United States. Only a minuscule fraction of Mexicans enter with such documents.

The legitimate goal of totalization with other countries is to avoid double taxation for retirement when employers assign their employees to work temporarily in another country. Reciprocity works because there is rough parity between the number of U.S. workers in the 20 other countries and the foreigners from those countries who work in the United States.

But this goal has no relevance to Mexico. There is no parity between the number of Mexicans working in the United States and the number of U.S. citizens working in Mexico, and absolutely no parity in the social security systems of the two countries.

Mexican benefits are not remotely equal to U.S. benefits. Americans receive benefits after working for 10 years, but Mexicans have to work 24 years before receiving benefits.

Mexican workers receive back in retirement only what they actually paid in, plus interest, whereas the U.S. Social Security system is skewed to give lower-wage earners benefits greatly in excess of what they and their employers contributed.

Mexico has two different retirement programs, one for public-sector employees, which is draining the national treasury, and one for private-sector workers, which is estimated to cover only 40 percent of the work force. The remaining workers are in the off-the-record economy euphemistically called the "informal" sector.

The 10 million Mexicans who have illegally entered the United States previously lived in poverty, did not pay social security taxes in Mexico and did not work for employers who paid taxes into a retirement plan. If they were working at all, it was in the off-the-record economy.

Illegality is no issue with the countries where the United States has existing totalization agreements because none of them accounts for even 1 percent of the U.S illegal population. On the other hand, Mexico provides more than two-thirds of the illegal immigrants in the United States.

The Bush totalization plan would pay out billions in Social Security benefits to Mexicans for work they did in the United States using fraudulent Social Security numbers, something Americans would be jailed for doing. It would pay Social Security disability benefits to Mexicans who worked in the United States as little as three years.

The Bush totalization plan would lure even more Mexicans into the United States illegally in the hope of amnesty and eligibility for Social Security benefits. The Bush plan would even cover spouses and dependents of Mexican illegal immigrants who mighty never have lived in the United States.

Because few if any of the illegal immigrants have built up any equity in the Mexican retirement system, what is there to totalize? Totalization is a plan for U.S. taxpayers to end up assuming the entire burden...."

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/phyllis...s20041115.shtml

Like I have said previously. I think it's entirely possible that Bush is playing Good Cop/Bad Cop with regard to mexican illegals to get the debate out of RRWs and taking it front and center where it belongs. And he's doing it in such a way so as to avoid taking too much of a hit from hispanic citizens

I have a conservative Bush loving friend who thinks any amnesty programs are insane and a threat to our national security. I happen to agree with a lot of his concerns. It is a gaping hole in our national defenses.

It's a hot potato, that's for sure. Bush does not want to piss off some of his traditional southern/sothwestern conservative allies who think, like my friend, that the amnesty program is the worse nightmare they have ever heard proposed. And like you said, he is also avoiding taking a hit from hispanic voters.

Then he has big business and agriculture interests who tend to favor loosening restrictions because of their labor force.

Which special interest group wins in the end? Well, if precident means anything, I'd say the ones with the most money for the cause.

"Which special interest group wins in the end?"

The ones that contribute to republicans. No matter who is in power it turns out that way.

You don't see how this can be engineered into a massive anti-immigration movement with Bush dragged kicking and screaming, by design?

ahhhh.. a strategy to absolve Bush of responsibility for a very touchy subject either way?

"Hey, I was for it buuuutttt"

hmmmm.... could be.

I've heard some Republicans and they are torqued. Maybe he's assuring them privately it won't be what they fear.

If it is by design, them Republicans are going to have to stay torqued.

Worse comes to worse, it gives the next Republican nominee an angle to run as a 'maverick'.

Reid is for a "guarantee" of Social Security, even though even the Dems admit it can only pay 70% after 2042? Doesn't sound like a guarantee to me.

Watching Chris Mathews before the speach started and he totally screwed up Social Security Wage v Price Indexing and portion of payroll tax to be diverted. Wage indexing only applies to initial benefit, not the annual cost of living increase to current beneficieries as Mathews claimed. Payroll tax diversion of 4 percentage points of employee contribution still leaves remainder of employee contribution AND all of "employer" contribution. You can oppose individual accounts and still tell the truth about the current program and proposed reforms.

ROFL. It must suck trying to sell the same old idea as something new. What a farqin joke.

I think every Democrat should voluntarily give back 30% of their SS. THEN they have some room for righteous indignation about allowing younger workers to take it in the shorts in 2042.

I would like to see Senator Reids financial plan to see if he really thinks the investing is like playing roulette.

Yeah.

Just like Ground Hog Day.

A settlement of pennies on the dollar.

We're twins.

KEWL!

I'm sure he is planning to rely on SS and US savings bonds.

Reid has some money stuffed under a mattress in Searchlight Nevada.


Let's go steal it.

I suspect his blind trust is loaded up with stocks of all the corporations he regularly criticizes.

Is that guy owned by the Vegas mob?

Dunno.

Does the mob collect OASI payroll taxes for its employees?

Does he live in Nevada?

They collect taxes from anybody they want to.

That might be what they call their collection efforts these days. I like to keep a low profile, so I'm not sure.

Yes he do.

Sometimes.

Searchlight Nevada.

Harry goes to the only restaurant in Searchlight to eat.

It's there he meets kids like Darren who want to be just like Harry.