Social Security is a Lemon, and I Want my Money Back

Imagine, if you will, a man knocking on your door asking offering you a special deal. His proposal is that each week for many, many years, you give him a chunk of your salary. In exchange, when you get old, he will return the money in monthly checks. You will not earn any interest on the money, as it will not be invested, but will be used it to pay off those who signed up before you. If you die, the man will keep the money you paid him.

You would probably slam the door in the man's face for what is obviously a pyramid scheme (or Ponzi scheme) scheme - but this is exactly what today we call Social Security.

Now imagine that you foolishly agreed to this offer (or were forced to join), and several years later the man returned with bad news. It turns out there isn't enough money to pay you back what he promised - he is having trouble getting enough new participants to join the pyramid scheme. Also, he has no money available now, as not only did he spend it giving it to others in the scheme, but he spent it on items for himself.

But he has a new offer for you: if you give him more money each week, he will give you less money back each month in the future, and he will wait a few more years (until you are even older) to begin paying you back. You would probably call the police, as you had been defrauded.

Unfortunately, this new scheme is called "saving Social Security".  Like Lando's agreement with Darth Vader, this deal keeps getting worse all the time.

There is ample reason why most 18-to-34-year-olds don't expect Social Security to be there when they retire - the program paid out more than it took in last year, and the so-called "trust fund" is nothing more than promises to pay back money from other tax revenue.

Even if Social Security weren't approaching bankruptcy, it is a raw deal.  The effective rate of return on Social Security payments is a little over 1 percent.  Indeed, while critics of "privatizing" Social Security point to "risky" investments, stock market returns over 40 years would generate several times more earnings than Social Security, even after market collapses.  Social Security may be less risky, but only because it is a guaranteed loser.

It is time to stop talking about saving Social Security, and start talking about ending Social Security.

Some more reading on Social Security:

• The Social Security Crisis is Real
• The National Ponzi Scheme
• The Straw Men of Social Security
• What if Social Security Were Completely Scrapped?

Sestak vs. Toomey: Record On Job Growth

Congressman Joe Sestak, talking about Bill Clinton coming to town to stump for him, tries to compare the records of Democrats vs. Republicans - particularly his opponent, former Congressman Pat Toomey - on job growth:

"Twenty-two million jobs were created when he [Bill Clinton] was in office. [Republicans under George W. Bush, including Pat Toomey] created none. We're going to Scranton to talk about jobs," Sestak said.

"We've controlled the damage. We've taken some steps but not enough," said Sestak, who hammered what he said is the fundamental difference between himself and Toomey.

The problem in Sestak's logic should be obvious - that Bill Clinton governed largely with a Republican Congress (including two years that Toomey served in Congress), and the current recession only began after Democrats took control of Congress, years after Toomey left.

Now, I would never ascribe the performance of our county's economy to the government, much less one person - even the President.  The economy is millions of individual actors, and while government policy has a significant role in economic performance, government doesn't create jobs or wealth.

Nonetheless, since Sestak raised the point, I thought it would be interesting to compare job creation while Toomey was in Congress - during which time Republicans controlled the House - and while Sestak has been in Congress - during which time Democrats have controlled the House.

Indeed, while Toomey was in Congress from 1999 to 2004, the nation added 5 million jobs.  Whereas since Sestak was elected, and Democrats took control of Congress, in 2006, the country has lost 6.6 million jobs.  Perhaps this is not the comparison he wants to make.

	Party Control of Congress	Job Growth (Loss)	Percent Change
Toomey (Jan 99-Dec 04)	Republican	5,094	4%
Sestak (Jan 07-July 10)	Democrat	(6,631)	-5%

Toomey vs Sestak on Jobs

The 600-Home Run Threshhold

As Alex Rodriguez approaches 600 career home runs (he may have already done so by the time this posts), a lot of pundits have suggested that 600 isn't what it used to be.  The fact that several players have reached  500-homer status - which used to be the threshold for greatness - and the number of 600+ home run players doubled in recent years, combined with revelations of steroid use among baseball players, seems to have diminished the difficulty of this milestone.

At the same time, others analysts have noted that it may be a long time before another pitcher wins 300 games.  Thus, the argument goes that 600 home runs is now much easier to achieve than 300 wins.

While the "steroid era" may have boosted home run production, at least the top-end years, and certainly changes in pitcher use (see note below) makes 300 wins more difficult, 600 home runs always has been far more achievable than previously thought.  Not to say it is "easy," of course, but given the right circumstances, it is realistic for outstanding power hitters.

Here are five basic criteria for getting 600 home runs or 300 wins:

1. Start young - hitting home runs or winning games by age 21
2. Play a long time - still being productive at age 40
3. Stay healthy (and don't miss time fighting in wars)
4. Consistently have good seasons- 30+ HRs or 15+ wins
5. Have multiple great season- 40+ HRs or 20+ wins (50+ HRs or 25+ wins are a bonus)

Of course, this should illustrate why modern pitchers are at a disadvantage - with the move to a 5-man rotation and greater bullpen use, winning 20 games is a rarity, and winning 25 or more almost never happens any more.  On the other hand, 600 home runs is and always was feasible, even without the 60- or 70-plus homer seasons of the steroid era. 

To illustrate, I will run down those who could have hit 600 home runs, starting with those who just missed the 500 HR club.

• Fred McGriff (493)- The "Crime Dog" was a fine slugger, but only meets one of the four criteria - most notably he never hit 40 or more home runs, topping out at 36 in a season.
• Lou Gehrig (493) - If you've read to this point, you probably know something about baseball, and certainly know that Lou Gehrig's career was cut short by Lou Gehrig's Disease.  He was finished at age 36, or else he likely would have reached 600 home runs.
• Eddie Murray (504) - Eddie Murray played a long time, but was never a great home run hitter.  His career high was 33 (though he did lead the league in the strike-shortened 1981 season), and only hit 30+ in 5 of 21 seasons.
  
• Gary Sheffield (509) - Sheffield's career was up and down, he broke in early, but struggled his first few years.  He had several good years and two 40+ years, but also several injury-plagued seasons.
• Mel Ott (511) - Only hit 40 once, and his production declined dramatically after age 30.
  
• Ernie Banks (512) - While Banks had more 40+ seasons than 30 to 39 homer season, he also declined after age 30, and didn't hit 20+ in a season until age 24.  
• Eddie Mathews (512) - Like Banks and Ott, dramatically declined after age 30.
• Willie McCovey (521) - McCovey started young and played a lot of years, but didn't hit a lot of home runs early or late in his career.  He only reached 40+ twice and 30+ seven times in 22 years.
  
• Frank Thomas (521) - Thomas was a great hitter early in his career, but lost a lot of time to injuries throughout his career; only hit 40+ twice.
• Ted Williams (521) - I'm going to pretend Ted Williams did hit 600 home runs - his major fault is missing most of five seasons fighting in wars.  WWII and the Korean War took Williams away from baseball during his peak (he missed parts of other seasons with injuries), otherwise, he'd have cleared 600 easily, and probably finished with 700 or more.
• Jimmie Foxx (534) - Foxx was fantastic early in his career, but he was washed up by age 33.
• Mickey Mantle (536) - Like others in his era, Mantle declined rapidly after age 30, and was out of baseball after age 36.
  
• Mike Schmidt (548) - Schmidt was the best home run hitter of his era, and hit 30+ homers regularly and 40+ often enough, but he started a bit late, and finished a bit early to make it to 600.
• Manny Ramirez (554) - Still going, and might make 600.  If not, it's probably due to the fact he didn't hit 20 or more in a season until age 23, and missed 50 games in 2009 due to suspension (plus a lot of games over the years due to various injuries).
• Reggie Jackson (563) - People love Mr. October, but his postseason heroics dwarf his regular season production.  Jackson hit 40 homers only twice, and only hit 30 or more seven times in 21 seasons of play, yet still approached 600.
  
• Rafael Palmeiro (566) - That Palmeiro approached 600 home runs demonstrates how attainable it is.  While perhaps aided by steroids late in his career, Palmeiro was never consider a great home run hitter compared to his contemporaries.  He did hit 40+ four times, but never led the league, and didn't hit 20 in a season until age 26.
• Harmon Killebrew (573) - Killebrew was great in between, but didn't really start playing until age 23, and declined after age 34.
  
• Jim Thome (575) - Still playing, and might have a shot at 600, but didn't break through until age 23, and missed almost all of the 2005 season with injury, as well as parts of other years.
  
• Mark McGwire (583) - McGwire broke in with a bang, and had several monster years.  But he was already 23 as a rooking, retired at age 37, and had 4 seasons in which he played fewer than 100 games (for comparison, he played 1,000 fewer games than Palmeiro).
• Frank Robinson (586)  - Like so many others of his era, Robinson declined after age 30, but not as drastically as some others.  He only hit 40 homers once.
• Sammy Sosa (609) - Sosa may be the poster boy for the steroid era, which would explain why he was not a great home run hitter until age 24, and hit close to half his career home runs over a five-year stretch. But despite that, retiring at 38, and sitting out the 2006 season, he still hit 600.
• Ken Griffey (630) - Most readers will know that Griffey's career was marred by a slew of injuries after age 30.  Had he stayed healthy, he probably would have reached 700 or even 800.
• Willie Mays (660) - Like Williams, Mays missed time due to war, playing little in 1952 and sitting out 1953.  Given he hit 40 the following year, had it not been for the Korean War (even though Mays' home run production declined after age 36), he should have hit 700.
  
• Babe Ruth (714) - Most folks accept that Babe was the greatest slugger ever.  Most readers will also know that he spent his first five years as a pitcher.  800 was well within his reach, but since Ruth became the all-time leader when he hit his 139th round-dinger, he probably never considered that a goal.
• Hank Aaron (755) - The only player (unless A-Rod matches it) to meet all five goals. 
• Barry Bonds (762) - While many begrudge Bond's records because of steroid allegations, he still could have hit a few more - he didn't become a top notch slugger (hitting 30+) until age 25, and missed almost all of the 2005 season (and the strike-shortened 1994 season cost him some games).

While the 50+, 60+, and 70+ homer seasons may have boosted some recent players, and the steroid label will haunt them, a top notch slugger can hit 600 home runs by staying healthy (modern players are doing better at this), by playing into his late 30s or early 40s (again, modern players are doing this), and by being productive in their 30s (again, modern players have an edge).  Not fighting in wars helps the modern-era ballplayer as well.

Big Government Rick Santorum

A new American Spectator piece touts Rick Santorum for president.  This obviously sends me into a tizzy (see previous post on Santorum).

For starters:

When Santorum lost in 2006, the Republican "brand" had been severely defaced by the Bush administration's mangling of the Iraqi war effort (pre-surge) combined with the ham-handed response to Hurricane Katrina and with the horrendous Bush-Hastert big-government axis on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. 

Perhaps the "brand" was also hampered by Rick Santorum's non-stop, historically inaccurate rants about "Islamo-Fascism" and why we needed to fight many more wars.  Or Rick Santorum's insistence the federal government get involved in every nanny-state scenario, including trying to get Congress to overrule courts on the Terry Schiavo case (affecting a single person).  Perhaps Santorum's lack of concern about the Constitution hurt the brand.


More importantly, I fail to see why the the "Bush-Hastert big-government axis" isn't the "Bush-Santorum big-government axis".  Santorum championed every major Bush era expansion of government through 2006 - including Medicare Part D, No Child Left Behind, and the like.  Santorum was Bush's go-to guy in the Senate, and his involvement in the K-Street project was solely to promote the Bush agenda.  Pretending Santorum had nothing to do with Bush's big government expansion is like suggesting Nancy Pelosi can't be blamed for Obamacare.

The article goes on to state that Santorum's only mistake was endorsing Arlen Specter - the key vote in passing the stimulus bill and the health care takeover - but that's no big deal.
 
Is this the same Rick Santorum who abused the earmark system as much as anyone, and continues to this day to defend earmarks (at least when Republicans give earmarks)?


Is this the same Rick Santorum who told a group of Pennsylvania conservatives that he's learned to love deficit spending?

Is this the same Rick Santorum who thinks the big problem with the Republican party is Libertarianism?  The same Rick Santorum who attacks individual liberty and denounces the pursuit of happiness?


Is this the same Rick Santorum who fought ceaselessly for the federal government use taxpayer dollars to start giving dating advice!

Rick Santorum  is as much to blame for the growing federal government spending and power as anyone in America.