Richard Egan, co-founder of data storage technology leader EMC2, was a Republican fundraiser and a friend of Dick Cheney. Diagnosed in May with advanced lung cancer, a couple of days ago Egan killed himself with a shotgun.
http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/20608388/detail.html
Richard Egan, 73, was inside his Four Seasons condo on Boylston Street when he killed himself in a closet. His wife and visiting nurse were in the home at the time and heard the gunshot.
As a noted Republican, Richard Egan had a perfect opportunity to step forward and proclaim his right to die with dignity, and denounce the lies about the proposed health care legislation having a provision calling for “death panels.” He didn’t do that, but I think somebody should.
Paul — The Social Security Administration states that since 1940, five years after the Social Security Act, what has changed is infant mortality, and life expectancy has, in fact, increased by fewer than 3 years for men, and fewer than 5 years for women.
http://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html
The cost of administering Social Security is incredibly low:
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/STATS/admin.html
Social Security is a transfer payment, not an individual retirement account. I view the tax money I pay into SS every month as covering my father’s entitlement, just as the money he paid in SS taxes during his working years helped his parents.
An interest rate isn’t being promised, because it’s not an investment. The payout is based on the years worked, income up to a limit, and when a person retires. Once a person starts receiving benefits, it’s indexed to inflation. In fact, from what I read recently, most recipients will see a reduction next year.
It is my feeling that no portion of Social Security should go into private accounts. People are already invested in the stock market with 401k plans, etc. If the stock market suffers a severe downturn, as it did year ago, people need something they can rely on, and that’s what Social Security is for.
Where the problem is coming in the years ahead is with the ratio of people paying in to those taking out. Our parents’ generation more than replaced themselves with children. Our generation hasn’t, and if we had there would be other problems to contend with. There is no doubt that hard choices and adjustments will have to be made, but changing the way Social Security works is a very bad idea.
Excellent posts, Lizzie and Doug! Yes, everything has to be rushed nowadays, and big mistakes are getting made because of it. [Paul’s comment was approved the same time as this comment.]
Doug,
You are wrong about Bush’s plan for Social Security. The Left tagged this as privitization of Social Security (much like the right talked about Death Panels) but the truth is, Bush wanted US…THE PEOPLE…to have the OPTION to do with OUR money (actually, only a very small percentage of it…if I recall it was suggested to be about 8%) as we wanted. It was only going to be allowed to be invested into a few government approved ways…but the point was (and still is) that Bush knew that most Americans could get a better rate of return on our Social Security “investment” than our bloated government was getting for us. In fact, our government isn’t really investing out hard-earned Social Security money at all…it’s just promising that the money will be returned to us with a small interest rate as we get older. Social Security will be near bankruptcy with 20 years unless payroll taxes are significantly raised or the “retirement” age is raised again. Amazing to me that FDR and his fellow libs never anticipated that we would live longer. The original scheme was, we’d pay into the program for our entire working life, we’d retire at 62, finally eagerly anticipating getting OUR OWN money back, and we’d die at 65-70 years old, reclaiming a tiny fraction of the money that was TAKEN FOR US. I want the government to leave us alone. We are ALL going to get old some day. Stop spending and save a little bit to take care of ourselves in our old age. We don’t need all of the toys, big houses, new cars, etc…(but we are tricked by advertisements that we “deserve” it all) We’re like children now. We need other people to take care of us. It’s outrageous to expect other people to be forced by the government to pay for other people’s medication, housing, new cars, etc.
My youngest brother recently commented that he didn’t know how he was going to pay for his son’s college…I asked him if he didn’t think his kid would eventually turn 18…now it makes sense to him. I propose that MANY of us know how to run our lives better than the government. I’d love to have more control of my life…not less. But apparently I’m now in the minority.
It’s better to take time, especially with the big stuff, to have a serious discussion and hash out what’s at stake. But sometimes quick and decisive action is needed by Congress, leaving the details to be sorted out later. Bush was successful in pushing to get approval to use force in Iraq, and what a mess he left behind. But fortunately, he failed to sell his Social Security privatization scheme.
We had to trust Bush and Cheney about Iraq, because they had all of the inside information we didn’t have. Ted Kennedy said we were being misled, and he was right.
But nobody fell for Bush’s claim that Social Security is broken when it isn’t, and most people aren’t falling for the claim that America’s heath insurance system is working, when it isn’t. (Actually, it’s an industry, and not a “system.”) Ted Kennedy said we needed a new way of providing health care, and he was right about that, too.
Paul, in all due respect, I’d like you to consider this: Your idea to me is like cutting down weeds with a lawn mower. They’ll still grow right back exactly the same, because they weren’t pulled out by the roots. It’s the system itself that needs fixing. New politicians just get sucked into the existing system, the way things are done. They have to deal with the swarms of lobbyists, and if they want anything done for their state or district, they have to vote “yes” for somebody else’s project, even if it’s a pork barrel. The old “you scratch my back; I’ll scratch yours.”
Also, in my opinion, the executive branch of government has grown in my lifetime to wield just too much power, to a dangerous degree, bypassing Congressional approval in too many ways. America’s founding fathers did not intend for our style of democratic government to work in a streamlined, efficient fashion. It was supposed to kind of lumber along, so that there was sufficient time for thorough discussion of pros and cons,and the system of checks and balances to work between the Executive, Congressional, and Judicial branches of our government. That system was not supposed to be bypassed by repeated emergencies or habitual extenuating circumstances declared by our President and commander in Chief. Meanwhile, ironically, the Presidential office persists in remaining too weak in not having the power of a line item veto on Congressional bills.
Then of course there is the military-industrial-government complex, a formidible machine that President (and former General) Eisenhower knew well, and was very concerned about by the end of his Presidency. I won’t go into that again, as I have referred to it already on previous blog postings.
So, the deck is really stacked against us little common folk anyway, who lack the wealth, power, connections, and influence to effect changes in any kind of a prompt fashion. Sure, we can pull a voting booth lever, but the governmental system remains the same. That’s why visionaries like Martin Luther King and Mahatma Ghandi were such giants. Or, more appropriately put, they were the Daveys felling the giants with slingshots. But it took years of hard work and dedication even by Ghandi and King, to effect the important changes they did.
I wish it would be so simple as to just pull a voting booth lever! But that’s only a small part in dealing with a very big problem. To think that it will get to the roots of some very stubborn weeds is only kidding ourselves.
Paul — I would suggest that someone who knows what’s in the bill wouldn’t use the expression “death panel.” It’s a scare tactic. Period.
Tom says that for some creepy reason the whole death panel thing reminds him of THIS infamous scene:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Sp-VFBbjpE
Doug,
Only a small number of people KNOW what is in this “health care” bill. Howcan there be serious discussion if very few people have actually taken the time to read it? Vote them ALL out. Sure, we may lose a handful of “good” politicians…but we should start over with a whole new crop.
I have no idea what Egan thought of euthanasia. All I know is he took his own life, and he was a prominent contributor to the GOP, which is using scare tactics like “death panels” and “pulling the plug on grandma,” instead of discussing what’s really in the proposed health care bill.
I am not a proponent of euthanasia or abortion, but I won’t stand in anybody else’s way if they choose that for themselves. Why DIDN’T Egan step forward? Excellent question. If the issue was that close to his heart, he would have been a perfect spokesperson.