I’m not impressed with either of the presidential candidates’ discussion of and/or plans for fixing the pending Social Security shortfall. During the presidential debates in New Hampshire on Jan. 5, 2008, Barack Obama again suggested significantly raising the income cap, but that approach is neither innovative nor new.

I submit that we should consider a different approach: change the criteria or formula with regard to the amount of Social Security payments made to individuals upon their retirement (or receiving of disability) to more appropriately reflect the amount of their total lifetime income that was subject to the Social Security (FICA) tax.

On the official Social Security Administration’s website at www.ssa.gov, there is a benefits calculator that estimates a person’s potential benefit amount using different retirement dates and levels of future earnings.

Using the SSA website’s Quick Calculator, I calculated the monthly benefit amount for two individuals, each of whom was born on the same date of 6/15/50, and each of whom plans to retire at age 68 in June of 2018. As a part of the calculation(s), I indicated that one of individuals earned $40,000 in 2007, and that the other individual earned $1,000,000 in 2007. For both individuals, I selected the option to see their projected benefit amounts in inflated (future) dollars. The results were as follows:

Current earnings: $40,000.00 - Your estimated monthly benefit amount, beginning at age 68 in 2018, is $2,039.00.

Current earnings: $1,000,000.00 - Your estimated monthly benefit amount, beginning at age 68 in 2018, is $3,826.00. (Note: For your benefit calculation, we limited your earnings to the $102,000.00 taxable maximum for 2008.)

Based on the calculation results, a person who earns tens of millions of dollars in his lifetime can expect to receive 88% more in monthly Social Security retirement benefits than a person who just barely earns $1,000,000 in his lifetime. And that same multi-millionaire can expect to receive 252% more in monthly Social Security retirement benefits than a person who earns just the federal minimum wage during his lifetime! Now why would a retiree with more than enough income and resources to support an affluent lifestyle need to receive $46000 a year from Social Security? Surely such an individual would not even blink if say, half of those Social Security benefits were re-directed to those persons who depend upon their monthly benefits to pay the rent, put food on the table and cover medical costs! After all, wasn't Social Security created as a safety net for the poorest of American Society?

I would love to hear what each of the presidential candidates has to say about that!

MY RESIGNATION FROM THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY

I have been a member of the Democratic Party since I first registered to vote in the Presidential Election of 1972. And I have voted for the Democratic Party's presidential nominee in each of the nine presidential elections that have occurred since 1972. But today I have changed my voter registration from that of Democrat to that of No Affiliation.

As a 9 year old boy, I was inspired by these words of President John F. Kennedy in his 1961 inaugural address: "And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country." As a young man in high school, when I studied American History I revered the words of The United States Bill of Rights and The United States Constitution.

During the events of the 2000 Presidential election, I was appalled that so many of Florida's voters were disenfranchised by the actions of their various state's officials and the eventual outcome of the election results in that state which resulted in the Republicans taking the White House! And that is why I was aghast when the Democratic National Party disqualified the ballots of millions of voters in the states of Michigan and Florida in this past spring's presidential primaries in those states! How dare they?!?!? Especially after the debacle of the 2000 Presidential election! Oh sure, on May 31st the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee voted to seat all of Florida's and Michigan's delegates, with each delegate having half a vote. But, I maintain that the DNC's actions were every bit as much an egregious assault on the rights of the citizens of Michigan and Florida as were the actions of Florida's officials and the actions of the United States Supreme Court in the aftermath of the 2000 Presidential election that in effect disenfranchised all of those American citizens who cast their ballots in November of 2000! After all, the voters of Michigan and Florida had no control over the actions of their respective state's Democratic Parties which decided to move up the dates of the primaries in defiance of the DNC's rules. Why then should they be denied their most basic and cherished right to cast their ballots in the good faith that their votes would be counted?!?

For this reason, I can no longer be a part of the Democratic Party. After all, how can I possibly support any entity that would deny any American citizen's vote from being counted?