Gary Owens – 2/20/05

This page was last updated on February 26, 2005.

It’s Robin Hood time; Gary Owens; Beaver County Times; February 20, 2005.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.

“About six weeks ago, I wrote a letter to the editor saying that we should do away with the cap on payments to Social Security, which now is $90,000.

“Someone from the White House must have read my letter because on Wednesday President Bush said he’s thinking about raising the cap on Social Security.

[RWC] As many liberals, Mr. Owens is exaggerating what President Bush said. When asked about raising the maximum taxed earnings, President Bush merely said it was not off the table. That’s a long way from thinking about raising the cap. My guess is that President Bush was baiting Democrats to show themselves as the party of tax increase proposals.

“I would like to revise my statement on no cap. Let’s, say, raise it to $200,000. This would surely put enough money in the Social Security Trust Fund that maybe senior citizens could get more than a 1 percent or 2 percent cost of living increase that they lose as soon as they get one.”

[RWC] Mr. Owens hasn’t been paying attention to the news. Even if we eliminated the cap completely, it would delay Socialist Security failure dates by only about 5 years. Throughout its history, the SS tax rate has increased from 2% to 12.4% and the maximum amount of taxed earnings has increased from $3,000 to $90,000. If that doesn’t convince you Socialist Security as it stands is a Ponzi scheme, nothing will.

However, since Mr. Owens wants to give away the tax increase in the form of larger cost of living adjustments, his proposal wouldn’t do anything at all for Socialist Security solvency. Further, Mr. Owens has the COLA situation backwards. Because of the formulas currently in use, SS COLAs outpace the true cost of living. That’s one of the many SS problems.

“I’m guessing that about 80 percent of the population would be OK with this. After all, do you remember Robin Hood? He robbed from the rich and gave to the poor, and everyone thought he was a hero.”

[RWC] Regarding Mr. Owens’ comment that 80% of the population might support this tax increase, he may be right. Quoting George Bernard Shaw, “A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.”

A lot of liberals draw an analogy between their policies and the actions of Robin Hood. There’s a problem with that analogy. As the legend goes, Robin Hood took from the ruling class and gave to the poor. What Robin Hood took from the ruling class were the confiscatory “taxes” extracted from the poor and the rich who did not support Prince John, however. Therefore, Robin Hood returned to the poor that which they earned and had been stolen by the government. What Mr. Owens proposes resembles the actions of Prince John and the Sheriff of Nottingham, not Robin Hood.

Here’s another problem with Mr. Owens proposal. Socialist Security was not intended to be a means to transfer wealth. It’s stated intent was to allow workers to “save” for retirement. Though Socialist Security already penalizes high wage earners, it appears Mr. Owens wants to increase its welfare-like characteristics.

One last point. Medicare has no earnings “cap” and it too is in trouble, perhaps worse near term trouble than Socialist Security.