If you thought that Social Security is solvent; check this out.

Factcheck.org

Some senior Democrats are claiming that Social Security does not contribute "one penny" to the federal deficit. That’s not true. The fact is, the federal government had to borrow $37 billion last year to finance Social Security, and will need to borrow more this year. The red ink is projected to total well over half a trillion dollars in the coming decade.

Factcheck.org is not exactly what you would call a Conservative website, but when it comes down to numbers, the numbers don't lie.

I thought there was a Social Security Trust Fund. We have been told on many Democrats (including Harry Reid) on multiple occasions that Social Security is solvent and doesn't need to be addressed right now. If social security were solvent then why must the government borrow money to support it? Social Security is more than just a Ponzi scheme. It's a Ponzi scheme that runs, in part, on borrowed money. Obama let the cat out of the bag and it can't be put back in.

President Obama on Tuesday said he cannot guarantee that retirees will receive their Social Security checks August 3 if Democrats and Republicans in Washington do not reach an agreement on reducing the deficit in the coming weeks.

"I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven't resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it," Mr. Obama said in an interview with CBS Evening News anchor Scott Pelley, according to excerpts released by CBS News.

Perhaps now that people can see the truth, that they have been given false information for a period over 30 years, they will start to pay closer attention to Washington and how it effects their lives. I wonder how open the public would have been to the idea of Social Security privatization, had they known this in 2006 when it was proposed by Bush?

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!

There are many things in life that through me for a loop, but none more than Rahm Emanuel. Why in the world would someone put themselves up for the position of Mayor, and expect not to be asked personal questions?

Rahm Emanuel is the perfect example of liberal hypocrisy. Listen to his reply when asked by reporter Mary Ann Ahern about where he would be sending his three children to school.

Similar to his former boss, Emanuel said it's a private decision.

While I appreciate the desire for privacy, I tried to explain that the Mayor’s family is now in the public eye as Chicago's First Family, and that the public would want to know whether Emanuel is confident enough in the public/government school system to send his own children there. But Emanuel broke in.

“Mary Ann, let me break the news to you. My children are not in a public position,” he said, curtly. “I am. You’re asking me a value statement and not a policy. … No, no, you have to appreciate this. My children are not an instrument of me being mayor. My children are my children, and that may be news to you, and that may be new to you, Mary Ann, but you have to understand that I’m making this decision as a father.”

The mayor stood up to leave.

“I look forward to our future interview,” he said before unclipping his lanyard microphone and dropping it to the floor, and walking out of his office. I asked my camera man to stop rolling.

As I tried to explain further, Emanuel doubled back. He looked directly at my two college interns, and said, "You are my witnesses."

Then, the Mayor of Chicago positioned himself inches from my face and pointed his finger directly at my head. He raised his voice and admonished me. How dare I ask where his children would go to school!

"You've done this before," he said.

This was the Emanuel we had heard about, and it was one of the oddest moments in my 29 years of reporting.

This speaks volumes of who Rahm Emanuel really is. He was not mad that he had to answer the question, he was mad that the question was posed --period. Rahm Emanuel is not a good enough politician/liar to come up with a nice sounding answer as to why his children will not be going to public school, but will be attending a private school. He was angry because in reality there is no way to answer that question without making obvious his lack of faith in the public school system.

Later Mary Ann Ahern called Emanuel directly to discuss what had happened in the interview. Again he was angry and rude, how dare someone ask him to speak the truth!

I tried to explain he had a point, but their parents too had to answer the question of what school they would attend. No one is trying to have lunch with the first children.

I also let him know that I felt wronged and bullied during his earlier tirade.

“You are wrong and a bully," Emanuel fired back. "I care deeply for my family. I don't care about you."

This is what brings me to "why"? Why would anyone want someone like this as a representative? Emanuel shows through his actions and words that he just doesn't care. That was the real Rahm Emanuel. He doesn't care that other people's kids have to go to a public school to receive a second-class education. But he will provide a first-class education for his children.

Someone might look at this situation and say, "So what, isn't that what you would do? Take care of your own family first." I would take care of my own family first. At the same time I would not lie about why I was sending my kids to a private school.

Public schools are failing because they have absolutely no accountability. The schools will continue to run, the teachers will continue to get paid and none of it has to do with the quality of education. Testing is not accountability. The government can't hold itself or its institutions accountable, only the public can do that. The problem with public education is that the public is far removed from the system. Schools should all be private --end of story. The parents should be making the decision of what schools to send their children to. Government money could still be used in cases where people can't afford schooling on their own, but the parents would still be able to choose where to send their kids. Look at what happened in Atlanta Georgia, the teachers were helping the kids cheat on tests to make it appear as if they were improving the quality of education.

Across Atlanta Public Schools, staff worked feverishly in secret to transform testing failures into successes.

Teachers and principals erased and corrected mistakes on students’ answer sheets.

Area superintendents silenced whistle-blowers and rewarded subordinates who met academic goals by any means possible.

Superintendent Beverly Hall and her top aides ignored, buried, destroyed or altered complaints about misconduct, claimed ignorance of wrongdoing and accused naysayers of failing to believe in poor children’s ability to learn.

For years — as long as a decade — this was how the Atlanta school district produced gains on state curriculum tests. The scores soared so dramatically they brought national acclaim to Hall and the district, according to an investigative report released Tuesday by Gov. Nathan Deal.

The bottom line is that competition based systems work better than government systems. People like Rahm Emanuel know this, why else would he send his own kids to private schools. The public school system will never improve so long as politicians, like Rahm Emanuel, are too scared to tell the truth for fear of a political backlash. The public school system in Chicago is Rahm Emanuel's business, he's the boss. If Rahm Emanuel won't hold the Chicago public school system accountable; who will?

But hey, Rahm Emanuel will sure stand up and get in the face of a female reporter.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!

Many things can pass as art these days, even things that the artists themselves can't explain. Then there are some works of art which just make you smile.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!

Jay Carney came out today telling reporters what they can and can't do.

Obama chafes at the time-honored practice of answering questions shouted at him during pooled, non-press conference events — and his staff has often opted for “stills sprays,” excluding print reporters or TV cameras who might capture Obama in the less than flattering non-act of snubbing a query.

Translation: We can't let reporters document what Obama really thinks.

When asked today why TV crews and print reporters were barred from the pool covering the White House meeting with congressional leaders on the deficit, Carney responded by pointing out that the administration has held two press conferences in the past two weeks and allowed TV cameras into the spray earlier this week.

"People shouted questions at him," Carney said. He then added, "The purpose of the meeting is not to create a circus, but to negotiate, so today we're doing stills only."

I only hope that Carney does not expect to be taken seriously here. This whole debt ceiling mess is a circus --that's the whole point. Think about it for a minute. Why would Obama be pushing so hard for tax increases that little effect the debt ceiling in any way. Why would he be so invested in trying to get people to hate those who own private jets? Why would he talk of "shared sacrifice" and all that jazz? Why would you threaten seniors by telling them that their Social Security checks might not go out? That's not the move of someone that's trying to stay low if you ask me.

Based on what I know; here is the real deal. Obama knows that the tax increases won't serve any purpose, he just wants Republicans to cave. That's it. There is nothing else to it. Obama is pushing to get the Republicans to agree to some deal with tax increases, either in the form of "closing loopholes" or allowing cuts to expire. Democrats know that their base doesn't pay attention to detail, but the Republican base and Tea Party groups do. Once the Republicans cave, their base becomes angry, and they loose votes. It's that simple.

This is indeed a bluff. If Republicans have any sense they will see this for exactly what it is.

Also pay attention to how every story speaks of possible doom, but nobody gets specific. Funny how that works isn't it. The press says, "We know it's going to be bad, but we don't know how. We can just feel it..."

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!

If Speaker Boehner agrees to an increase in the debt limit now; he exemplifies the lack of leadership that got Obama elected in the first place.

When the majority of Americans are behind you; you, Speaker Boehner, still can't do what you know is right! What more does it take? I predict that Republicans WILL CAVE and raise the debt limit.

The debt limit is a ruse anyway, it's just an arbitrary number. If the debt limit can be raised indefinitely by legislative action alone; where is the limiting factor? The debt limit is a measure of how far into the future we are willing to borrow. I would let the debt reach the limit. Once everyone sees that it's not the end of the world; Obama won't have anything to stand on. I say reach the limit and invalidate everything Obama has said on the issue. There should be no increase in the debt limit, only spending cuts. If there can't be spending cuts alone (without a debt limit increase) then there will never be an end to the debt limit increases.

This is a "make it or break it" moment. Let's hope that the Republicans don't break it.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.