Here's "an oldie but a goodie" - Social Security Solvency - reprint of an earlier article: (the link to FHA

web-site is for supporting data)

As you continue to watch ad after ad on television and find flyer after flyer in your mailbox from my two
esteemed opponents, has anyone noticed a lack of message as to what they intend to do in Congress?
One issue at a time - here goes. *(these are answers that could not possibly be given completely in a
120-second response in debate - or, in my case, 80 seconds, as I was consistently cut short by the
moderator in Ocean County...but I digress)
Both say they will fight to preserve social security. How, exactly?
Tom MacArthur wants to privatize the social security system. Is anyone surprised that he wants to move
that massive amount of cash-flow into the commission-based financial services sector of the economy?
Isn't it bad enough that we pay a vig on every bonded dollar? Now, you want private profit on public
funds?
Remember, the folks managing these funds have correctly predicted 9 of the last 4 recessions. (read it
again if you didn't chuckle at that - an old economist joke).
Isn't that exactly where NJ's Pension scheme went wrong? (Well, that and poor stewardship).
YES. That's EXACTLY where our State PERS planning went awry.
AIMEE says equalizing wages will "save" social security.
I am absolutely all for pay equality - especially as the father of FOUR DAUGHTERS. She holds no
monopoly on Womens' issues in this race - in fact, OUR organization is the only one actively working
toward seeing through the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment, which would guarantee two-way
equality by Federal Law for all our Citizens.
The trouble with reliance on Aimee's plan is that it assumes that all women's wages would rise, rather
than the wages of both sexes being "averaged". It's a similar misconception with assuming that raising
the minimum wage will raise the standard of living.
I am not against a living wage - no one who is rational would be - but we need to look at that from a
more advanced Economics perspective, rather than "Economics 101". Why?
Has anyone considered that those earning slightly above the proposed new wage threshold, who have
years of experience and education, are not going to suddenly find themselves earning more?

Meanwhile, the costs of goods and services will rise accordingly, as employers offset the change in labor
costs with changes in pricing. They have no choice, because, as they are responsible to shareholders in
public companies - "No Margin = No Mission".
It is my position that neither of my opponents has examined this issue sufficiently...although I will give
kudos to Tom for pointing out what I have been saying for months (but he got to say first in the debate)
- that wages should increase relative to the varying costs in each State.
Here's the solution WE offer you on Social Security...
Solution on Social Security Solvency? Lift the cap on social security taxation. Presently, only earnings up
to $ 117,000.00 are taxed....so that discounting is essentially a tax break for higher earning folks. While
certainly something to smile about when you're wealthy, that tax break is a luxury the rest of us can no
longer afford.
Why would we find it socially acceptable that someone who earns $ 150,000 per year is less responsible
as a percentage of income for what we have all agreed is a social and moral obligation than someone
who earns $ 33,000.00 per year?
I chose those earnings figures specifically to illustrate my point, as, since the cap is presently at $
117,000.00, the relative DISCOUNT the higher earner in the above example receives is EQUAL TO THE
ENTIRE CONTRIBUTION of the lower earner. ($ 33,000.00 plus $ 117,000.00 = $ 150,000.00)
Social Security would be immediately and perpetually solvent. In fact, it may well be that, as the baby
boomer generation passes on - and I am at the tail end of that generation - we will leave a lower overall
obligation for our children and grandchildren.
That's right...our plan actually results in an eventual tax CUT for our children and grandchildren, rather
than forcing the burden of our present expenditures on them.
Why hasn't this been suggested before? Actually, it has - but not by anyone earning more than $
117,000.00, apparently.
It becomes a matter of "Political Will", rather than "Political Won't".
Here's the solution on proposed increases in Minimum Wage.
Can we agree that income and expenditures are BOTH part of your budget? Of course they are.
While we examine the question of how much to raise the minimum wage in a given State Economy - or
even a regional economy - why aren't we examining ways to lower COSTS?

Well, actually, WE ARE. I will get to that in a moment.

The metric we could use has already been calculated by HUD - but it's not something we often associate
with wages...although we should.
HUD calculates the costs of home ownership by region**. The math is a little more complex that
necessary to explain here, but if you live in Cumberland County, your cost of living is, by and large,
LOWER than if you live in Ocean County. They are not far apart geographically, but we all recognize the
effect on the microeconomics of a community it's proximity to a major center of employment and
industry has...for example, it costs far less to live a 2 hour commute from New York or Philadelphia than
it does to live 30 minutes away.
Earnings are necessarily higher in the city markets, because they must be to offset city wage taxes and
commuting expenses - otherwise, employers would be hard pressed not to make the decision to move
where the workers live. In fact, we're seeing that every day for decades, now, as manufacturing jobs
have fled overseas to find cheaper labor, and white-collar jobs, now no longer requiring brick and
mortar in the city in an information age, are migrating to more suburban office locations, if not
transitioning wholly to the telecommuting workforce.
In the link shown, you can enter a city or zip code from around the Country, and the limits for borrowing
for 1-, 2-, 3-, and 4-family homes with FHA-backed mortgage financing.
https://entp.hud.gov/idapp/html/hicostlook.cfm
In the example given, (Ocean and Cumberland Counties), the LENDING limits are as follows:
OCEAN COUNTY:
NEW YORK-NEWARK-JERSEY CITY, NY-NJ-PA OCEAN COUNTY NJ
SINGLE FAMILY = $625,500
DUPLEX = $800,775
TRIPLEX = $967,950
QUAD = $1,202,925
Median Sale Price = $783,000 01/01/2014 CY2014
and,
CUMBERLAND COUNTY:
VINELAND-BRIDGETON, NJ
CUMBERLAND COUNTY NJ

SINGLE FAMILY = $271,050

DUPLEX = $347,000
TRIPLEX = $419,425
QUAD = $521,250
Median Sale Price = $115,000 01/01/2014 CY2014

Would it be fair to say that the minimum wage, whatever the figure, goes a lot farther in the budget in
some communities than in others?
I believe that we should consider using the MSA percentage calculations as a BENCHMARK for
establishing minimum wage in a State, but we have to be careful there, as well, because we could very
quickly drive workers to seek employment in the higher-paying areas, effectively removing opportunities
in the less affluent areas over time. Other factors that come into play at that point would include
municipalities' offering "incentives/abatements" to some businesses to remain in or even to entice them
to move into a region due to the ability to find cheaper labor and lower costs - only to find that the labor
supply need not travel very far to find better pay. That is a tough balance to strike. I almost edited this
paragraph out, because it is a bit boring, but it is an important concept to consider for local
governments, who are pressed to give tax abatements to bring in jobs, but then are forced to add a
greater burden to the rest of their community's tax base to offset the costs of services provided BY the
community.
It is because of the regionalized diversity in costs, earnings and opportunities in the several counties in
New Jersey, that we would find it difficult to come up with a truly fair and balanced State-wide plan. I
believe using the ratios by MSA region as the most fair way we have, for now, in dividing up proposed
changes on a State by State basis...although I am willing to listen to other proposals, as well.
ONE SIZE DOES NOT FIT ALL.
More on cost reductions to follow...or view my videos on Bond Reform and Budget Stewardship.

WORKING FOR YOU LIKE YOU ALREADY ELECTED ME.

Perhaps you should.

"Stand for what's right, or settle for what's left" - Frederick John LaVergne, "Democratic-Republican" for
Congress, NJ Congressional District THREE, 2014.
YOU HAVE A BETTER CHOICE, this time. MAKE IT.