A Modest Proposal

This proposal is for a new retirement system. This is not a reform of the current Social Security system, but rather a complete replacement of it.

How would it work?

The basic idea is this: At birth every child who is a natural born citizen citizen¹ would have the government put $8,000 into a retirement fund. The money in that fund would be invested in an index fund such as an S&P 500 or Russell 3000 index fund (I would prefer a Russell 3000 fund). This takes advantage of both the high rate of return of these index funds and the power of compounding when started at the earliest possible age. For example, if the future average real annual growth in the fund is 6%, then for every $1,000 invested there would be, in inflation adjusted terms, ~$44,000 65 years later.

What would be the amount of the annual benefit?

The amount of the annual benefit would be determined by the fund administrators. The administrators would set the amount based of the total amount in the fund relative to the number of recipients. That would make this system a cross-breed between a traditional company pension fund, which would be called a defined benefit plan, and a retirement system based on IRAs and 401ks, which would be called a defined contribution plan. The plan administrators should be somewhat conservative in setting the amount of the annual benefit so as to allow for downturns in the economy when the total principal amount in the fund would decrease. At regular intervals the plan administrators would review the health of the fund and increase amount of the payments as appropriate.

Why an index fund?

A 2010 study showed that an S&P 500 index fund outperformed 99.4 % of all mutual funds. Historically the Russell 3000 index has modestly outperformed the S&P 500 index. So it stands to reason that a Russell 3000 index fund would outperform a slightly larger percentage of all mutual funds.

What would be the expected future annual growth rate?

Good question. The Russell 3000 index went from 888.89 on January 3, 1995 to 6792.93 on January 3, 2017. Inflation for the same period was 61.57%. This results in an annual real growth rate 6.19%. Since January 1, 2013 the index has  increased by more than 65%, more than twice the average previous rate, with no significant change in the economy to justify such a large increase. Now, if you include the period since 2013 in the long term average you get an annual growth rate of over 8%. If you don’t include 2013 you get the annual rate of 6.19% referenced above. 6.19% seems a little low while 8% is definitely too high, especially when you consider that the average PE ratio for S&P 500 is more 24. Since the long term average for the S&P 500 PE ration is around 16 it would seem the the stock market is currently overpriced. So I will make an educated guess and say 6.5%, a little above 6.19% and well below 8%. The reality is that there is so much uncertainty about the future that any such estimate would have a huge error bar associated with it.

Why a fund and not an individual account?

It seems reasonable to assume that even smaller a percentage of individuals who are not financial managers would be able to outperform an S&P 500 index fund. An individual account which would allow trading would simply be an excuse for the banks and/or Wall Street to syphon off 1% of the principal in the fund annually. I did consider individual account without a trading option which would pay benefits based on the principal amount in the account, but I realized there was a problem with that idea. Consider two children. One is born on December 9, 2007, the day the stock market peaked just before the housing bubble broke. The other is born on March 9, 2009, the day the market bottomed-out following the bubble. At that point the first child’s principal amount would have declined to $4,292.37. From that point on they would have exactly the same growth in their accounts, but the first child would end up with only 43% of the annual benefit of the second child. In fact, it would be even worse since, if they both retire at the same age, the second child would benefit from an additional 15 months of growth in the fund. It would be very unfair to have such a large difference in the benefit received based solely a person’s date of birth. The only way I can see that would allow for people retiring at the same age receiving the same benefit is for all of the initial money to go into a fund.


One of the key features of this proposed system is that the benefit would be inheritable. But instead of inheriting the annual payments, the heirs would inherit the amount of principal necessary to pay that benefit. I would propose that the benefit would only be inheritable by the children of the person receiving the benefit. That would mean that not only would everyone covered by this plan would have a decent income in retirement, buy also that the second generation of people covered by this plan would inherit a reasonable amount of money from their parents.

Funding of the new system

In the long term the funding of this proposed system would be much easier than the current system, requiring an employee payroll tax between .6 and .8 per cent with no employer contribution needed. Now, when I say long term, I mean long term – 65 to 70 years. This is because of the need to continue funding the current system until the last group of people eligible for the current system reach retirement age. At that point the payroll tax can be gradually reduced for employees and gradually eliminated for employers. But that is for the long term. For the short term there is a very real funding problem since the first people entering the new system will not enter the work force, and thus start paying the payroll tax, for some number of years.

I can think of a number of ways of solving this initial funding problem.

One is to have the Treasury loan the money to the new trust fund, to be repaid as the people in the new system start paying the payroll tax. This has the advantage of requiring no money other than that coming from the employee payroll tax. It has the disadvantage of diverting money away from the current OASI trust fund, which already has funding problems to resolve.

Another is to increase the payroll tax by .5%, .a .25% increase for both the employee and employer. This is probably not a good idea in a sluggish economy and is also probably a political non-starter.

The third way is to initially fund the system from general revenue. This is the option which I would prefer. This would divert no money away from the current OASI trust fund, which would mean that any funding problems with that trust fund are problems they would have anyway. The obvious problem is that this would be a new spending program. What would be unusual about this spending program is that there would be a fairly definite date in the future, albeit 65 years in the future, when the spending would end.

Transition from the current Social Security to the new one

There are actually two transitions required.

The first is a bureaucratic transition, new forms, procedures, etc. While a non-trivial problem, it is readily resolved. Bureaucrats know how to do this sort of thing and it should not be a significant problem.

The second is the financial transition. If the public funding option mentioned above is implemented, then the financial transition is trivial. The funding problems for the current OASI trust fund would be no greater than they already are. If any funding option for my proposed new system is implemented which diverts any payroll tax money away from the current system, then the funding problems for the current OASI trust fund would be greater, probably significantly greater. So while there would be no legal linkage between the new and old systems, there would be financial and political linkages.

What about other savings for retirement?

The only other retirement savings program I would keep would be the 401K program and then only to the extent that there is a company matching amount. All of the rest of the current retirement programs, including the 401K contributions beyond the amount matched by the company are really primarily beneficial to people who have sufficient income that they should not need any government assistance in their savings effort. I would encourage people to save for retirement beyond what this program would provide, it’s just that I don’t think the government should be involved in since such involvement has a strong tendency to end up benefiting the financially better off portion of the population.

Note: I have another proposal coming up which would interact with and almost certainly cause changes to this proposal. I will discuss those interactions and changes when I post the other item.

  1. The Supreme Court has never ruled on what is meant by the phrase ‘natural born citizen’. I think it is obvious, a natural born citizen is anyone who is a citizen of the United States by reason of their birth, that is, either their father or mother is a U.S. citizen or they are born in the United States.

Industrial Plan

As soon as you say the words ‘Industrial Plan’ the Republicans will start screaming ‘government interference in the economy’ at the top of their lungs. But the fact of the matter is that we already have an industrial plan. But it’s a plan that has been implemented piecemeal over a few decades with little or no thought about how the pieces fit together.

For example, there is a federal subsidy of home installation of solar panels. In a rational world that would be considered part of an industrial plan. So would the federal subsidy of methanol. So far so good, we are subsidizing a renewable source of energy and a bio fuel.¹ But we also subsidize oil, it’s called the oil depletion allowance and it is a tax deduction available to owners of oil stocks. Now those three subsidies combined make no sense, but as I said there has been little or no thought as to how the pieces fit together.

So the first step in developing the AWCP industrial plan would be to research and document the existing industrial plan. Once that is complete the next step would be to simplify the existing industrial plan as much as possible. Only then would there be any move by the AWCP to make any additions to the industrial plan and you can make a good case for making no additions, just let the market determine the winners and losers without any interference from the government.


The American Working Class Party Platform

The American Working Class Party (AWCP) is a purely hypothetical party I created so I could control the AWCP platform.

This post lists the proposed planks in the AWCP platform. When I write up the details for a plank, I will update this post to provide a link to the post for that plank. I may also occasionally update this post to add new planks.

By the time I have completed AWCP platform you will have a very good idea of what what my political beliefs are.

Secession Procedure

War Tax

New Social Security System

Libel Reform

Industrial Plan

Big Banks

National ID

High School Curriculum Reform

Tax Reform

Corporate Short Term Thinking

Value Added Tax – Part 1

Value Added Tax – Part 2



Gun Control

Guaranteed Minimum Income

Illegal Drugs

Workers Rights

Military Spending

Ideas already out there which I support

  • Free College
  • 15$ Minimum Wage
  • Single Payer




Inverse DOMA

Now that the Republicans have full control of the federal government and managed to steal a supreme court nomination from Obama I think that DOMA, or a slightly tweaked version of it, may well rear it’s ugly head again.

What is interesting is that there is at least one government agency with regulations similar to DOMA, but with important differences.

My first job after I got out of the Army was with what was then the Veterans Administration, now the Department of Veterans Affairs, as a claims examiner at the VA Chicago regional office. I started with education cases and was later given disability and pension cases. Most people are aware of the VA disability program and most are also aware of the education program, but I would guess that most people are not aware off the VA pension program. That is a means tested program which pays a modest monthly benefit to indigent elderly veterans. If a veteran died and was married his widow could receive a widow’s pension.

By the early part of the twentieth century a problem had developed with the widows pension program. Single young women were having death bed marriages to elderly civil war vets. When the vet died shortly thereafter the widow could receive widows pension for the rest of her life or until she remarried. To solve this problem the VA implemented a regulation such that the VA would not recognize a marriage unless at least a year elapsed before the veteran died or that the widow had a child as a result of the marriage.

Superficially this is just like DOMA but there are large differences between the two. DOMA prohibited all Federal agencies from recognizing a gay marriage. In addition DOMA allowed states to refuse to recognize a gay marriage performed in another state. The VA regulation, on the other hand, was narrowly written to solve a specific problem in a specific program. Also, while DOMA showed animus towards gays, the VA showed no such animus towards the young women other than preventing them from gaming the system.

Another problem that came up in the widow’s pension program was related to provision mentioned above that if a widow remarried her widow’s pension would be terminated. What some widows started doing was to do things to convince her friends and neighbors that she had remarried without actually getting married. To illustrate the problem consider a widow named Mary Smith who gets romantically involved with a man named John Jones. She would change her legal name to Mary Jones. She would get a new driver’s license in the name of Mary Jones. They would put Mr. & Mrs. Jones on the mailbox. They would tell everyone, except for the VA, that they had gotten married but they would never actually be married. This would allow them to avoid the stigma of an unmarried couple living together while allowing her to continue to receive widow’s pension. As a result of this type of conduct the VA implemented a regulation stipulating that if a widow ‘held herself out as being married’ then the VA would treat her as if she had actually remarried and terminate her widow’s pension. This is the inverse of DOMA and the previous situation where the VA would refuse to recognize a marriage unless certain conditions were met even though the state in which the marriage was performed recognized the marriage without those conditions. Here the VA would treat a widow as if she had remarried even though she was not legally married in any state.

I actually processed a case like this towards the end of my time at the regional office. I wrote up a decision terminating a widow’s pension retroactive five years. Any decision generating a large repayment was automatically sent to the VA central office in D.C. for review. Shortly after making that determination I transferred to the VA data processing center at Hines, Illinois so I never found out the result of the review. Since the evidence was solid, plus the fact that my boss had to cosign the decision, I firmly believe that central office held up the basic decision to terminate the benefits. On the other hand I would not be surprised to find out that they adjusted the retroactive date of the termination. The VA would probably never get back the full amount due in the first place, plus, the widow in question was not exactly flush with money. I suspect that they adjusted the retroactive termination to be a few months instead of five years. That would be enough to make repayment hurt a bit without actually bankrupting the couple. That would be fine with me since I doubt whether widows receiving pension were terribly well informed of the prohibition against ‘holding yourself out as being married’. If anything it was probably buried in a two or three page document filled with legal jargon which the widow received when she first started getting widows pension. Such documents are like the terms and conditions you agree to when you access a website, rarely actually read by anyone.


Donald Trump is Toast

There has been a great deal written about Robert Mueller investigating whether the Trump campaign, possibly including Trump himself, colluded with the Russians to influence to last Presidential election. There has also been a lot written about whether Trump has committed obstruction of justice. Mueller is also investigating Trump for income tax fraud and money laundering. The main stream media has largely ignored those last two issues but Mueller has assigned FBI agents specializing in tax fraud and money laundering to his team so it is obvious that Mueller is seriously investigating Trump in those two areas.

One interesting thing about the Mueller investigation is that he has convened not one but two grand juries. I am assuming that he has two simply because a full blown investigation into four different issues would probably be too much disparate information for one grand jury to handle.

I think he has split up the work between the two grand juries as follows:

One grand jury is handling Russian collusion and obstruction of justice while the other grand jury is handling money laundering and tax fraud. This split would also separate the investigation of Trump the candidate/President from the investigation of Trump the private citizen. The reason I think this is important is that during the Ken Starr investigation of President Clinton the question arose whether you could indict a sitting President. Ken Starr assigned one of his staff to research that issue and her conclusion was that, yes, you could indict a sitting President but only for things unrelated to his presidential duties, a conclusion which I agree with. The grand jury split mentioned above would have one grand jury handling issues related to Trump’s presidential duties while the other grand jury would be handling issues unrelated to his presidential duties

This split would also result in one grand jury handling people oriented investigations and the other grand jury handling document oriented investigations.

Document oriented  investigations move faster. Consider how long it would have taken Mueller to get copies of Trump’s tax returns from the IRS, and he does have copies of those returns, and compare that to how long it is taking Mueller to arrange an meeting with Steve Bannon. This means that the investigations of the Trump family tax returns and possible money laundering will almost certainly be completed before the Russian collusion investigation.

Ordinarily an investigator such as Mueller would wait until an investigation is complete before having the grand jury issue any indictments of the main target of the investigation, but if there were any ongoing related investigations the indictments would be sealed until all other investigations were complete.  In this case, however, Trump has threatened to fire Mueller and some Republicans in Congress have called for Mueller to be fired and the investigation into collusion with Russia by Trump or his campaign terminated. As a result I think that Mueller has decided that as soon as he has solid evidence sufficient to justify an indictment of Trump for either money laundering or tax fraud he would have the grand jury issue a sealed indictment even while the money laundering and tax fraud investigations were ongoing. Furthermore I suspect that Mueller has told the grand jury that if he, Mueller, is fired then unseal all indictments and issue them. This would act as insurance against Trump firing Mueller or Congress moving to terminate the investigation, say by cutting off all funding.

To sum up, I think there are probably already sealed indictments of Trump for money laundering and/or income tax evasion, but Trump just doesn’t know it.

Libel Reform

Under current libel law there are two classes of people, public and non-public. If someone publishes¹ something about you which is not true and you are a non-public person you can sue for libel and win if you can prove that what was said about you was not true. If you are a public person you can still sue for libel but you have a distinctly higher standard to meet. You must not only prove that what was published was not true but also prove actual malice on the part of the publisher, or, to put it another way, you must prove that the publisher knew it was not true but published the story anyway².

The problem is that people have figured out how to libel a public person and remain impervious to a libel suit. Here’s how it works. Say I am a radio personality, such as Rush Limbaugh, and I want to malign a public person, such as Hillary Clinton. I can’t simply make something up without potentially leaving myself open to a libel suit so what I do is take something sent to me by a demented listener and publish that without making any attempt to verify the information. In that way I can honestly say that I didn’t know that the information was false which makes me virtually invulnerable to a libel suit. This has led to a situation where all manner of obviously untrue things are published about people who are public persons with little fear of being sued.³

My proposed solution is allow a public person to sue using the same criteria as a non-public person, but not for damages. They could only ask the court to force the person/organization to issue a retraction of the libelous statement and an apology. The key thing here is that the retraction and apology must be as prominent as the original statement. For example, if a newspaper prints a libelous statement on the front page of the Sunday edition then the retraction and apology must take up the same amount of space on the front page of the Sunday edition. If a radio show host goes on for two minutes at 8 PM on a weeknight then the retraction and apology must last for two minutes and be broadcast in the same time slot. If the original statement is repeated then the retraction and apology must be repeated the same number of times.

What effect would such a reform have? I obviously can’t be certain, but I can’t imagine that Rush Limbaugh, if forced to make a genuine retraction and apology, would not be at least a little more cautious about what he said on the air. In any case I think we need to do something to tone down some of the ridiculous things being broadcast and printed.


  1. I am using the word publish to include any method of conveying information to include print media, radio, TV,  the internet, and speech.
  2. I am not a lawyer so if my terminology or my description of the current libel system is a little off take my non-legal background into consideration. The details of the current libel system are not as important as the fact that there are two different criteria for a public and non-public person to prove libel and recover damages.
  3. You can’t get much goofier than the accusation that Hillary Clinton and John Podesta were operating a child pedophile ring out of the basement of a suburban Maryland pizzeria. If nothing else, the pizzeria in question didn’t even have a basement. It sits on a concrete slab. Also, in this case, the totally false accusation had real world consequences since a man with a gun showed up at the pizzeria in question and started firing shots into the ceiling demanding to be shown the room where the child pedophile ring supposedly existed.

Puerto Rico

I am amazed that I have not read a single article/blog post explaining why Donald Trump has displayed such a disgusting attitude towards the humanitarian disaster unfolding in Puerto Rico namely that he is a racist. Look at the names most frequently referenced. The name of the territory is Puerto Rico. The capital is San Juan. The mayor of San Juan is Carmen Yulín Cruz. The Governor of Puerto Rico is Ricardo A. Rosselló. Those are all Hispanic names. During the presidential campaign Donald Trump virtually promised to be a racist vis-a-vis Hispanics, he is now fulfilling that promise.

Secession Procedure

Article IV Section 3  of the U.S. Constitution states:

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

Note that the criteria for admitting a new state to the Union is strictly up to Congress unless it involves an existing state at which point  the state legislatures become involved. Note also that the Constitution is silent on the issue of seceding from the Union.¹ This proposal would create a formal procedure for a state to peacefully secede from the Union. The steps in this proposal are as follows:

  1. Only those states which border on another country or have a coast line on the Pacific Ocean, Atlantic Ocean or the Gulf of Mexico would be eligible to secede. The purpose of this restriction is to avoid a state seceding and creating a new country which is completely surrounded by the the remaining United States. As such the states initially eligible to secede would be: Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Delaware, New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, Minnesota, Michigan, Vermont, Alaska, and Hawaii (31 states). Those states not initially eligible to secede would be Nevada, Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Tennessee, and Kentucky (19 states). If a state were to secede that would change the above lists. For example, if Texas were to secede that would make Oklahoma and Arkansas eligible to secede.
  2.  The state wanting to secede would hold a referendum on the issue. The votes in favor of secession must be at least 55% of the votes cast. (the exact per cent required is less important than that it be a significant super majority; you’re not going to break up the union on a fifty per cent plus one basis). There must be at least three months notification of the date of the referendum.
  3. No voter suppression is allowed. Any U.S. citizen who is a resident of the state in question would be allowed to vote. There would be federal monitors at all precincts to observe only. If their observations result in a finding that the was any significant voter suppression then the results would be thrown out.
  4. If the referendum fails, or the results are thrown out due to voter suppression or any other irregularities a new referendum could not be scheduled for at least one year.
  5. If the referendum succeeds then Congress must also approve of the secession by the same super majority as the referendum. The reality is, however, that I cannot imagine the Congress rejecting the secession if the referendum passes with a super majority.
  6. If the referendum passes and Congress approves then the secession process would proceed over a three year period.

Consequences of secession:

  • All federal offices in the seceding state would close. This would include all military bases, Coast Guard bases, VA facilities, and border posts. All aircraft, vehicles, ships, etc. would be removed to the U.S. but all federal facilities would remain intact including any infrastructure such as radar units, network cabling etc.
  • There would be no dual citizenship. Anyone who becomes a citizen of the seceding state would forfeit his/her U.S. citizenship. If you dislike the Union so much that you want to secede then it makes no sense to allow you to continue to remain a U.S. citizen. Any U.S. citizen who is a resident of the seceding state who does not become a citizen of that state would remain a U.S. citizen but would obviously have to obtain a U.S. passport some time in the three year period if they did not already have one.
  • The seceding state would have to agree in advance to pay half of the moving expenses of any resident of the state who would not want to be a resident after secession. If any of the red states were to secede I cannot think of a good reason why any member of a minority group would want to remain a resident of that state after the three year transition period.
  • There are two programs in particular that anyone voting in a secession referendum should be aware of.
    • Social Security – You can receive social security if you are living outside of the U.S. but I don’t know if you can have the payments direct deposited in a foreign bank account. In any case that is an issue which could be negotiated during the three year transition period. The real problem is that as soon as you stop paying into the social security fund the amount would receive when you retire starts to decline and someone who is middle aged or a young adult would not get very much when they reach retirement age.
    • Medicare – This is a bigger problem since Medicare will not pay for any treatment outside of the United States. This means that even if you are already enrolled in Medicare and you are a resident of a state that secedes you would have to travel back to the U.S. for treatment or pay for it yourself.
  • There are many other issues involved in a secession such as where do you draw the offshore boundaries for a state such as North Carolina. Most of these would be settled as part of a negotiating process during the three year transition period.

While I am completely serious about creating a formal procedure for a state to secede from the Union I will admit to having an ulterior motive for establishing such a procedure. Current Governor Abbot and his predecessor Gov. Perry have both said they would consider having Texas secede from the Union. I want to call their bluff because I think they are both modern Texas cowboys – all hat and no cattle.² Implementing a formal procedure would send a message to Gov. Abbott to either put up or shut up. Unfortunately I don’t think he would either put up or shut up.³

  1. It is important to note that at the beginning of the secession process which started the Civil War the seceding states made no attempt to secede peacefully. They started the process by shelling Fort Sumter and killing Union soldiers. In short, they wanted a civil war, not simply to secede.
  2. It would be interesting to find out how many people in Texas wear cowboy hats compared to the number of Texans who are actually cowboys. The ration has to 1000 to 1 at least.
  3. The fact is that most of the red states are moocher states. I am using Mitt Romney’s definition of a moocher which is anyone who receives more in Federal benefits than they pay in Federal taxes. Most red states, Texas in particular, receive more in Federal spending than the residents pay in Federal taxes. In the case of Texas, consider San Antonio which has five military base in the area. If Texas were to secede those five bases would all close and San Antonio would dry up and blow away.