Arizona Daily Wildcat
Tuesday, January 25, 2005
Print this
Social Security debate needs more context, less conjecture
Since 1938, conservatives have been predicting that Social Security will bankrupt the nation. The primary motivation for privatization has been the idea that Social Security is "in a crisis?" The Social Security tax produces more income than the program pays out. In fact, it's running a hefty surplus.
By law, Social Security deposits surplus money in Treasury securities. Its trust fund holds more than $1.5 trillion. By 2018, politicians predict that Social Security will run a deficit, when security funds will have to be sold. Therefore, the only "crisis" would come if these funds dried up. There have been several points in America's past where the system ran a deficit, and it always overcame this by selling back a minimum amount of securities.
Looking at past trends, the program has always had more years of massive surplus than years of deficit.
The law requires the SSA to estimate its financial condition for the next 75 years. Politicians tend to speak of these estimations with an air of precision, which is amusing when one considers that even the best economists have difficult predicting swings in the federal budget between years. The SSA itself does not pretend to have such precision. Its actuaries admit that financial conditions years from now are nearly impossible to predict.
The SSA's most pessimistic guess has the system exhausting its reserves in 2042, and the program would able to pay 70 percent of scheduled benefits. However, if the SSA's most pessimistic guess proves false, as it has traditionally, then there will be no need for any additional payroll taxes or benefit cuts for the entirety of the 75-year estimation. The SSA's most pessimistic guesses have almost never been true.
Since 1997, the SSA has pushed back the date at which reserves are expected to run out by 13 years. While the Chicken Littles have cried of impending doom, the actuaries have grown more optimistic and secure in their predictions of a sound program.
Michael Werth
astrophysics sophomore
United States remaining in Middle East creates terrorism
In reading Mr. Riches' opinion, "Misconceptions reward terrorism," I was disturbed to read his arrogant point of view toward terrorism. When one looks at terrorism, one must try to understand the point of view of the terrorist. During the Afghan War, Osama was very effective at defending an Islamic country against the Communist Régime. During the first Gulf War, many of the people of Saudi Arabia and the Middle Eastern world considered the invaders to be the western superpower of the United States. The Saudi royal family were the ones who turned to America's help. Osama, who at the time was good friends with the royal family, and his group of fighters (al-Qaida), had asked permission to fight the Iraqi army. He had been able to overthrow the Communist invasion a few years earlier and he should certainly be able to overthrow Sadaam.
The true insult to the Islamic nations is that America did not respect the culture and traditions of the people and did not leave the Middle East at the end of the war. We will not get rid of terrorism if we continue to attack and tick off the rest of the world. We say we have allies but when asked their opinions of the Bush administration, 80 percent of the people of our most potent friend (Britain) were against the administration and the agenda of Bush.
If you do not hurt someone it is very unlikely that they will attack you. In our presence in the Middle East we have done nothing but enrage anti-American sentiment.
Samuel Pegg
business economics junior
Contrasting letters ironic, make point
Was the irony intentional in placing Thomas McFarren's "Conservatives as smart as liberals" right next to Dan Parmelee's absurd "Bush protesters need to get over it" in yesterday's Mailbag? Kudos to the editor for showing McFarren exactly why people think liberals are smarter than conservatives.
Of course there are many smart conservatives, such as McFarren's example of Ben Stein. But it is not the Ben Steins of the country who typify the Republican Party and make up 51 percent of American voters. Conservatives are overwhelmingly uninformed of what it means to be conservative. Perhaps there are more liberals with Ph.Ds, and that can explain the disparity between professors' ideologies.
Philip Knittel
media arts senior
Think about turning tables on immigration
First, you enter Mexico illegally. Never mind immigration quotas, visas, international law or any of that nonsense. Once there, demand that the local government provide free medical care for you and your entire family.
Demand bilingual nurses and doctors.
Demand free bilingual local government forms, bulletins, etc.
Procreate abundantly.
Deflect any criticism of this allegedly irresponsible reproductive behavior with, "It is a cultural United States thing. You would not understand, pal."
Keep your American identity strong. Fly Old Glory from your rooftop, or proudly display it in your front window or on your car bumper.
Speak only English at home and in public and insist that your children do likewise.
Demand classes on American culture in the Mexican school system.
Demand a local Mexican driver's license. This will afford other legal rights and will go far to legitimize your unauthorized, illegal, presence in Mexico.
Sound ridiculous? Well it's happening right here, in the land of the naive. We need to take back our country.
Justin Kunzelmann
UA alumnus
UA football uniforms boring, lack style
The football team's uniforms are boring. The uniforms have been dated for about 12 years now. It took seven years for the appearance to slow down recruiting. The poor recruiting of the past five years resulted as much from lack of style as failures on the part of the coaching staffs of the time. The failure to realize the importance emblazoned banners of heraldry play in ritualized warfare has cost our football team recruits.
Oregon and Cal stayed with the trends of the times, building first-class programs with first-class recruits and trendy uniforms with both toughness and class. The expression of toughness and class are important in the eyes of potential recruits. I hope coach Stoops realizes the significance of having class. True enough, he introduced "tough" looking uniforms. But they are also dull. They lack imagination. They lack class. Oregon and Cal have proved uniforms can be both. Personally, I would like to see sage green and silver reintroduced to go with the red and blue. While this may seem ludicrous and gaudy at first glance, it does not take much imagination to see the Wildcats with classy silver helmets without stripes. The shirts could remain blue or red. A slight splash or two of teal could subtly be added under the guise of sage green with the excuse being "what is sage green anyway?" Think about it Mike, but if you change, whatever you do, hire artists who understand what appeals to teenagers today.
Keith Deem
junior majoring in English and creative writing
UA meals cost us more, satisfy less
The best $4.21 you can spend on campus is at Cafe Sonora. For $4.21 you can get a Chicken Taco Salad that is about 95 percent lettuce, 1 percent chicken, 1 percent crappy tomatoes and 3 percent undersized shell. Yes, the taco salads have a lot of lettuce. Why? Because it's cheap.
In all seriousness, I have become increasingly disappointed with the on-campus meal choices this year. Portions are getting smaller, but becoming more expensive. Quality has been inexcusable.
The university is trying to draw more students to the on-campus restaurants, especially with the possibility of a required meal plan for freshman. Well it isn't working on me.
Next year, I won't be buying a meal plan unless I see some serious improvements.
Dan Parmelee
management information systems/operations management sophomore
Protest against Bush raises questions
After reading about the protest the day of President Bush's inauguration, it made me ponder many things. First of all I respect all views, but do the ones who were protesting realize that before we liberated Iraq, the people had no right to protest and if they did they were tortured or killed? Also, do they realize that women have no authority or any right to get an education? Are the protesters aware that men and women their age and younger have died for generations protecting their right to free speech and other rights that many in the world do not have? Finally my last question to all the protesters against Bush is: How many of you actually got out on Nov. 2?
Gabriel M. Bustamante
family studies junior
Kidz Korner not helping parents
How can a student-parent actually watch their children and study at the same time at Kidz Korner? Taking proper care of children requires parents' full and undivided attention. Proper studying requires a students' full and undivided attention. Just exactly how is Kidz Korner helping student-parents?
Lisa Barnes
former graduate student
Political protest legal, part of U.S. culture
People who think people protesting Bush need to get over it need to get over it. In America, political protest is both legally protected and part of the political culture. If you don't like political protest, you're free to leave. But I suppose you just want to take advantage of all the benefits of living in America, even though you hate all the political protest.
But, on second thought, I guess I need to get over it too. If I don't like a nation where fools can write in letters to the editor complaining about people complaining about Bush, I'm free to leave. I suppose I just want to take advantage of all the benefits of living in America, even though I hate the complaint and meta-complaint (and so on ad infinitum).
Cole Mitchell
philosophy graduate student
Bush protesters show courage to speak out
This letter is in response to Dan Parmelee's letter "Bush protesters need to get over it." In this letter, Mr. Parmelee refers to Bush protesters as sore losers and immediately refers to liberals as beggars. These arguments are completely unfounded as well as un-American. At no point is there any sort of relevant or logical argument, just a short rant on how protesters are wasting their time because their side lost and how democratic protesters leech off of the American system. Comments like these have been thrown around as an attempt to disparage the work of those who protest; however they are just small insults. What he clearly fails to realize is who the protesters are. They are all Americans. We are all Americans; we all do our part to keep the system running.
The truth is the protesters are not sore losers; they are upset because the man who was elected to the office of president, George W. Bush, is not fit to hold office. His actions in his first term showed his character to be a warmongering radical that denies use of strategy and logic and fights his own personal war. His dealings in Iraq were not concordant with fighting the man who attacked America, which should have been the number one priority. He did not act in the best interests of America. His re-election, and therefore his inauguration, represent a beginning of a second four-year era of ineptitude in the commander-in-chief. People who protest are not wasting their time by any means. They are using their First Amendment rights for free speech to tell people that they disagree. It is not about being mad because they lost; it is about never stopping the fight against Bush's ludicrous presidency. It is about peacefully fighting a man who considers himself a war president. Don't refer to protesters as a drain on society; see them as the only ones with the courage to speak their mind.
Alan Fullmer
journalism sophomore
Write a Letter to the Editor
