Egalitarianism Goes to the Cinema

Last week during his State of the Union address, President Obama spoke at length about his view of how America works and what the people have a right to expect from the government.  Lines about people who work hard and fulfill their obligations being able to live a decent life, increases in minimum wage and so forth brought standing ovations.  If you listened to any conservative commentary you likely heard much of what Obama said referred to as egalitarian, but just what does it mean to be egalitarian?

Imagine you are the manager or owner of a small movie theater with several screens.  You have been in business for quite some time and have developed a good knowledge of your customers and what sort of movies they like.   You are notified that the state legislature has passed a new law requiring you to show all films offered to you.  The intention, so they claim, to help ensure that small film makers have the opportunity to have their films shown and make money.   You protest but are told that this is being "supporting the arts", since it should not just be big films or films from well known directors that are shown in theaters.  You cringe to think what types of films you may be forced to accept since your own experience and judgment are no longer final and you will lose customers as they will no longer be able to trust your choice of films. 

Further, you learn as you actually read the law, you will also be required to equally share revenue between any films you show each week, regardless of how many people actually attend each one.  While this does not directly or immediately impact how much money you will make, you know that in the long term it will be devastating.  Film distributors of expensive "blockbuster" films will likely stop dealing with you as they are unlikely to see as much of a return from your theater as they would from theaters in other states.  You know that this will mean that eventually the quality of films available in your state will decline as there will be less incentive to make or distribute films in your state that require a large investment as they will not be able to recoup it as the income from ticket sales will be diluted by the share taken to give to poorly made and/or attended films.

Later you hear rumblings that this type of legislation will become national, to "protect" the theaters in those states that are just trying to "support the arts".  You know that if such a law passes it means the end of the film industry in the United States, but you have long since closed your theater as your customers have increasingly turned to DVD, streaming video and other means of obtaining films that are not available in theaters in your state.  If the law goes national, well, at least you will still have foreign films.  Until the government passes the Film and Video Protection Act slapping a large tariff on foreign entertainment available in the United States, the proceeds of which will, of course, be used to support the arts.  Well, at least those arts the government deems as needing support.

While the events described above might seem unlikely, they do illustrate the most common types of egalitarianism: equality of opportunity and equality of results.

In the first part of the story, I describe equality of opportunity, where everyone gets a chance, regardless of merit.  While this may sound good, a little thought will show that it cannot actually exist in reality without violating someone's rights.  In my theater example, it should be obvious that the manager/owner's rights are being violated pretty significantly.  He is no longer allowed to use his own judgment to select the films he will show, but rather he has to show whatever films someone wants to offer him, regardless of any sort of objective assessment of quality or appropriateness.  Other examples include, but are certainly not limited to: providing home loans to people who do not meet the standard requirements for borrowing simply because the "deserve" the opportunity to own a home; giving tax payer funds to a company to develop products regardless of whether there is, or will be, any demand for them; forcing hiring quotas based on criteria that are non-essential to job performance such as race, gender, and age regardless of the number of candidates from those categories actually applying for the job. In all these cases, the ability of some are being suppressed or devalued to give opportunity to others.

I go on in the next paragraph to describe the second definition of egalitarianism: equality of outcome.  As with equality of opportunity it should be apparent that this is impossible to achieve without infringing on someone's rights.  In the theater example, the makers of a successful films are penalized (actually they are stolen from) in order to provide equal outcome to the less popular film.  You can find further examples of this in the world today such as the Marxist theory of "from each according to his ability and to each according to his needs";  social promotions in schools with no regard to the actual achievement of the student in their classwork; pay or employment based solely on seniority rather than performance; or, as in Obama's speech, providing a "decent living" to someone who "works hard" and "fulfills their obligations" (with no real definition of what those terms mean) regardless of the actual value created.  In all of these cases, results earned by one group are either taken away or devalued in order to provide them to another.

If infringing on the rights of some to provide benefits to others as egalitarianism requires is immoral, which it is, then what type of equality, if any, can we strive for?  The only moral type of equality is equality before the law.  If your rights are infringed on by someone, the courts should only recognize the facts of the case.  Non-essentials such as race, gender, age, wealth, social standing, political connections and so forth should play no part in the proceedings.  

Sadly, as Obama's address illustrated,  we appear to be moving toward increasing collectivism and egalitarianism and away from true, achievable, equality.  Virtually every government program claims to be all about "equality" and "fairness", again without defining what exactly this means, while trampling the rights of other groups to provide those benefits to another group that is claimed to be at a disadvantage.  At the same time these programs often reward with special privileges individuals or groups who are favored by those currently in power.   

Until we actually embrace the notion of equality before the law and reject any other supposed type, we will be increasingly at risk of finding ourselves in one of the groups whose rights need to be infringed in order to be "fair" to the politically important group of the moment.

A rarity....financial sense in Washington

In flipping through the channels I came across an interesting program on CSPAN-2 about the Securities & Exchange Commission Agenda.

The thing that caught my attention on this program was something the main speaker, Dan Gallagher of the SEC, said that to me seemed quite sensible, and illustrates one of the many side-effects of the Federal Reserve's policy of keeping interests rates artificially low:

I think a focus on fixed income especially in a 0 percent interest rate environment.  Right, where we are watching investors chase yield  in crazy places where they don't want to be either.  Right.  They'd rather be in an interest bearing CD but they can't be so they are in junk bonds and munis.

This is exactly the same sort of incentive that helped lead to the financial crisis in 2008.  Government policy led banks and other financial institutions to chase yields in places they would rather not be.  As government agencies like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac took over more of the mortgage business, banks had to take on more risk to stay in business.  Once those riskier mortgages, which Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac then packaged up and resold in order to comply further government rules that 50% of loans be sub-prime mortgages, began to default the whole system began to break down.  For more on the causes of the financial crisis, check out this presentation by John Allison, who was the head of one of the largest financial institutions in the country during the crisis.  Well worth watching in its entirety.

Later in the program he answered a question regarding the diversity of the American financial services industry and the danger of  "implementing 400 rules is that you will begin picking winners and losers among financial firms" and suffocating the way American entrepreneurs access financial services, he said:

You've touched a cord I've been talking a lot about lately in less formal settings, but to me the issue is capital markets versus the banking markets.  What I fear coming out of the crisis, what you see in Dodd-Frank, what you in the EU directives and international bodies, like FSB here or FSOC domestically is sort of the bank regulatory view of the world taking over the capital markets.  Right the notion of de-risking and safety and soundness.  It sounds great when you come out of the crisis.  When you have seen hell and come back.  the last thing you want to do is engage in risking taking or to encourage risking taking.  As a regulator to allow it to happen at all.  Because you got burned in whatever narrative about the crisis.  But as you know the capital markets are all about risk.  Without risk we don't have the capital markets.  You have to put your capital at risk if you want to get a return.  We can't de-risk them.  Money market funds are a good example, when you start talking about silly things like capital buffer, de-risking something at 50 basis points that might kill the product.  Right at the risk of killing the product it doesn't make any sense.  But this is the mind set that's pervading.  It is something we all have to watch.  Because soon enough, if there are not enough opportunities to take risk and get a return. You know, the economy is bad enough now, lets see how it does after that mind set takes over. [ed. any errors in this transcription are mine.]

It is good to know that at least one person at the SEC realizes that implementing more poorly thought out rules and regulations could and likely will have negative consequences to the nation's economy.  For more of how Dodd-Frank will likely damage the economy, check out this article.

Government Intervention...What Could go Wrong?

So what can happen when the government interferes with the economy?  Let's take a peek at what happened in the case of health insurance, specifically employer provided insurance.

In 1942, in an effort to control costs and prevent disruptions in the labor market, the government passed the Stabilization Act which essentially froze prices, wages and salaries at the level they were at in September, 1942.  Exempted from this was insurance and pension benefits.  So to attract workers, companies began offering health insurance as a fringe benefits as they could not offer higher wages.  The next year, the IRS ruled that employer provided health care was tax exempt, further encouraging the practice.

Towards the end of the war, the War Labor Board ruled that companies could not discontinue these benefits during the life of a contract.  A few years later, in 1949, the National Labor Relations Board ruled, later upheld by the Supreme Court, that insurance and pensions could be considered wages and thus subject to collective bargaining.  During the 1950's when there was little competition for US manufacturing, companies and governments were eager to provide these tax free benefits.  This greatly expanded the number of employees covered by employer provided insurance.  In 1951 100,000 employees were covered by major medical insurance, by 1986 this had reached 156,000,000.

All of this helped increase the rate at which health care costs rose.  As a report from the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute shows:

The regulatory changes that propelled the rapid expansion of employer-provided health insurance during and after World War II helped fuel the hospital cost spiral by completely removing consumers from any contact with health care costs.

This trend was likely exacerbated by the introduction of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965 which further removed the individual from the real costs of their health care.

All of this has led to recent decades where the only real growth in employee compensation is from the increase in health care costs rather than in an increase in wages.  So the cost to the employer has gone up but the employee has received little direct benefit from it as the services he gets for his insurance likely have not improved, just had their costs increase.  For example, a USA Today report shows that from 2007 to 2011, real wages increased only 1.4% ($777) while benefits increased by nearly twice that amount, $1302.  The article does not mention how much of the $777 growth in real wages went to paying the increased employee contribution to health care.

Enter Obamacare, which was in part intended to help control the spiraling costs which were in part caused by previous government interventions.  With the Obamacare employer mandate, many employers will be compelled to provide health insurance for their employees or face fines.  While some employers already do provide insurance, many will see their costs go up due to the requirements of the new law.  This will likely further erode real wage growth for many employees.  Assuming they keep their full time jobs, which is by no means guaranteed.

Which brings me to the latest step in long chain of cause and effect.  Last week, Investor's Business Daily had an interesting editorial.  In it, Betsy Mccaughey describes a coming change we will be seeing on our W-2 forms this year, namely a box for your health care benefits.  According to the administration this is simply for information purposes so you can appreciate the value of your health care plan. The fear is that this is actually a prelude to employer provided health care benefits being taxed.

The federal government, since it is apparently incapable of actually controlling spending, is always on the look out for new sources of additional tax revenue.  It likely did not take them long to come to the conclusion that the exemption for employer provided health insurance is the single largest "tax expenditure" in the tax code.  (Interesting how a feature of the tax code that allows people to keep more of their money is considered by analysts to be an expenditure to the government.)  In 2012-2013, the CBO estimates this single item has a total "expenditure" of 1.8% of GDP or something approaching $300 billion, making it a likely target for tax reform, especially for the "rich."

If you feel that this is unlikely, I found an article detailing such a proposal in President Obama's 2009 jobs bill.  In this bill the proposal was to exclude employer-provided health benefits from itemized deductions for those making more than $200,000 while at the same time capping the remaining deductions for the same group.  It is not difficult to imagine this notion seeping down to lower brackets.  As I pointed out in "First the "Rich" and the YOU!", it simply isn't possible to fund current government spending by just taxing the "rich."

So thanks to a history of government intervention in the economy, you could end up paying taxes on benefits that government policy helped inflate the price of out of a paycheck that is likely smaller because of those same government policies.

Government intervention, what could go wrong?


Regards

Gun Control, Fiscal Cliff Cronyism and more

Some good links for this week.

Enjoy!

This is perhaps my favorite article of the week, though there were plenty of good ones, and I quite honestly lost track of some.


With Gun Control, Cost Benefit Analysis Is Amoral
Really nice take on the whole gun control issue.  I especially like his statement: "Statistics about how often gun-related crimes occur in the population is no evidence against you. That’s collectivist thinking. The choices made by others are irrelevant to the choices that you will make."


Senators, Representatives—and Americans Who Voted for Them—to Blame for Increased Spending and Tax Hikes

Obama's Debt Problem
Even Politico.com recognizes that the debt is Obama's now, not Bush's (though Bush did his share to start digging the hole.)

Crony Capitalist Blowout
Great write up of all the pork in the fiscal cliff bill.

Rum Subsidies Included in Fiscal Cliff Pork
Still more pork, or in this case rum, in the fiscal cliff bill.

Of Hurricanes, Pork and Subsidies
And yet more pork.

The Spending Cliff
The real issue facing America.  While increasing taxes is bad, not cutting spending is what will sink the country.

Has the Kyoto protocol done more harm than good?
Did the effort to fight global warming via the Kyoto Protocols contribute to "outsourcing" of manufacturing to undeveloped or developing countries?  Seems like it could very well have had a part to play.  Also, the countries where manufacturing moved too use less efficient fuels so likely have higher emissions, so overall global emissions are up.  Great example of unintended consequences.

My Boys Like Shootouts. What's Wrong With That?
Ah, the craziness regarding guns.  And apparently butter knives.

So What's Next, Mr. President?
And still more on the failure of the fiscal cliff deal to actually deal with the country's real problems: debt and out of control spending.

No Regulation, No Problem
Stossel on the need (lack there of) for government regulation.

Farm Bill Extension Better Than Trillion-Dollar Bill
Repealing the old "permanent" law regarding dairy price supports would make too much sense.  Much easier to be able to scare the public with the thought of doubling or tripling milk prices.  The government really has no place in the economy other than making sure that force and fraud are removed from it.

It’s a Spending Problem
More support for my contention in an earlier blog post that we can't tax our way out of the financial problems we have in this country.

Closing the Jobs Gap
Great little calculator for seeing how long it would take to recover all the jobs lost during the recession based on average monthly job gains.  Interesting fact is that 88,000 is the average number of new workers entering the job market each month from population growth.  So when you see 155,000 new jobs as we did in the latest jobs report, that is actually only about 67,000 net jobs recovered.  Something to keep in mind when the government claims to have created X million jobs in Y years.  Subtract 12*Y*88,000 to see how many people who lost their jobs might have found new ones.

Libertarian Purity Test
Interesting "libertarian purity" test.  My score was 98 out of a possible 160.  A number of the high value questions I didn't agree with, such as privatizing law or the police for example.

Climate Impact of the Keystone XL Pipeline
Just how little impact the Keystone Pipeline would have on the environment.

Regards

You Cannot Compromise Principles

I've always had a hard time with the concept of compromise when it comes to government. For reasons I could never really define, I was uneasy by the concept that you should accept something you fundamentally did not agree with in order to obtain something you wanted, or in the case of government, in return for a promise to vote for something you wanted in the future.

Of course I would always be told that government was all about compromise and look at how the Founding Fathers had to compromise in order to write the Constitution. Still, it did not make any sense to me and despite this "explanation", it didn't seem right.

Recently I came across the writings of Ayn Rand and things started to become clearer.  In regards to compromise, the following quotes struck home for me:

"It is only in regard to concretes or particulars, implementing a mutually accepted basic principle, that one may compromise. For instance, one may bargain with a buyer over the price one wants to receive for one’s product, and agree on a sum somewhere between one’s demand and his offer. The mutually accepted basic principle, in such case, is the principle of trade, namely: that the buyer must pay the seller for his product. But if one wanted to be paid and the alleged buyer wanted to obtain one’s product for nothing, no compromise, agreement or discussion would be possible, only the total surrender of one or the other."

"In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit."

 
To me this made perfect sense to me.  It helped me realize that it was on principles where I did not want to accept that compromise was valid.  Pretty much every issue in government, major ones at any rate, involve principles.  So for example, if on principle you believe it is wrong for the government to use its coercive power to redistribute wealth from one segment of the population to another, then it would be immoral  and evil to do anything that increases the burden of taxes as this would be compromising your basic principles.
  On the other hand, on issues where there is not a difference on basic principle, national defense for example (at least I hope everyone in government agrees we have a right to protect our interests), it is perfectly moral to compromise (to a point) on how to go about that task, how much to spend and how to fund it and so forth.


Unfortunately it appears that government today is all about compromising on both details and principle and the mainstream media agrees, and tends to support the view of the Democrats.  In this week's Time magazine there is an article, "Cliff Dweller" by Michael Grunwald which has the following quote:

"if Senate Republicans had decided to work with Obama in his first term instead of fighting him, they could have helped shape Obamacare and other Democratic legislation."

 So apparently the feeling in the media, and I think in large parts of the population, is that the Republicans should compromise their principles and go along with the Democrat agenda to help "shape" the legislation. In the case of Obamacare, this is essentially saying that if Republicans are opposed on principle to allowing the Federal government to compel citizens to purchase a product, they should set aside that principle and work with those feel it is proper for the government to do so.  To do so is not a compromise, but an abdication of your principles.

Sadly, I don't believe many Republican members of Congress actually hold the principles they claim to hold.  As one example, the individual mandate in Obamacare has roots on the Republican side.  One need only take a glance at this article on Fox News to see it has a long history of Republican support. In the final debate between Mitt Romney and President Obama, my main impression was there was no principle difference between the two in many areas.  Many of Romney's answers appeared to me to be variations on "I agree with the President, but I think I can do it better."  So it is merely the details, not the underlying principles, that they differed on.

It should be obvious that most members of Congress hold the same statist and altruistic principles, though the details vary.   Very few would argue for reducing and eventually eliminating the welfare/regulatory state we live in, only how to fund it and run it more efficiently (i.e. look at the expansion of regulation under Sarbanes-Oxley which had no dissenting votes in the Senate and only 3 in the House).  Even Paul Ryan's so-called "radical" budget plan doesn't cut government spending, rather it simply slows the growth so that the budget will balance, at a higher level, in 20 years or so.

The main difference between the two parties is that the Democrats present a more consistent message of these principles.  They openly state that it is the government's job to provide cradle to the grave economic security for everyone and take whatever steps required to achieve that whether that be higher taxes, banning large soft drinks, compelling companies to provide nutrition labels and so forth.  The Republicans tend to say the opposite, talking of personal freedom and individual rights, while pursuing many of the same goals.

I think one final quote from Ayn Rand perfectly sums up how we have arrived at the situation we find ourselves in as a country:

Consider a few rules about the working of principles in practice and about the relationship of principles to goals . . . .

1.     In any conflict between two men (or two groups) who hold the same basic principles, it is the more consistent one who wins.
2.     In any collaboration between two men (or two groups) who hold different basic principles, it is the more evil or irrational one who wins.
3.     When opposite basic principles are clearly and openly defined, it works to the advantage of the rational side; when they are not clearly defined, but are hidden or evaded, it works to the advantage of the irrational side.

Regards

Perhaps there is Hope for Change

Sometimes it can be disheartening looking at the direction the country appears to be going.  Hardly a day goes by when we do not hear news of some new program or regulation or law that is supposed to make us "safer" or "healthier" or to promote the "common good."   When we note that these laws and programs and regulations restrict our individual liberty and limit our rights (or take them away altogether), we are told that we all have to make sacrifices to make this country great or for the "public good."*

Sadly the majority of Americans seem intent on electing officials, in both parties, whose opinion of the people is essentially "you are too ignorant or easily misled to make good decisions about <insert whatever issue they want to control this time>, so just let us tell you what to do and think."  The only difference between the parties often appears to be little more than which issues we are too stupid to make decisions about or the best way the government can make those decisions for us.

Sometimes though, there can be a little glimmer of hope that things can change to a more positive direction.  On Reason.com today I was reading a review of "Iron Curtain: The Crushing of Eastern Europe, 1944–1956," by Anne Applebaum.  In the midst of the review was the following quote that was one such glimmer of hope for change, and especially relevant today:

"Even when they seem bewitched by the cult of the Leader or of the party, appearances can be deceiving. And even when it seems as if they are in full agreement with the most absurd propaganda—even if they are marching in parades, chanting slogans, singing that the party is always right—the spell can suddenly, unexpectedly, dramatically be broken."

Regards

*oddly, it often appears that the definition of "public" in this usage is "everyone but you."

My 2 percent...I mean cents

I had a little interaction on Twitter the other day that got me thinking.  A dangerous thing as my brother might tell me.

I had posted to Twitter:

Ah, first paycheck of the year, first view of my higher taxes. And people say the government can't work fast.

The difference in my paycheck was just the ending of the so called "payroll tax holiday."

This garnered a decent number, for me, of favorites, retweets and even a few new followers.  It also drew one direct reply:

This was a two year tax holiday; would you like to have it made permanent? Why not lower the rate to 0%, and borrow 100%?

Implicit in this reply is that Social Security is a fact of reality that is not subject to change and that the only choice open to us is how we fund it.

This is a pretty common assumption, or at least not uncommon.  A quick search revealed any number of similar reactions a year ago when the payroll tax holiday was extended.  For example:

Investor's Business Daily (one of my favorite newspapers) said, "Result: cash for pizza now — and smaller Social Security checks later."
Truth Sandwich's headline read: "Raiding the Social Security Piggy Bank for Pizza Money"
CNS News reported, quoting Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA), "Wolf called the payroll tax extension a "raid on Social Security, which is already going broke," and he noted that the money paid into the system now -- through payroll taxes -- pays benefits for existing retirees."

This was pretty much my reaction at the time.  I felt that if we have a Social Security system that is by all accounts already looking at trouble down the road it is foolish to knowingly take in less money.  For those that don't believe that Social Security is on shaky ground, here is a quote from Social Security Administration that they used to send out when they mailed statements to people:

"Your estimated benefits are based on current law. Congress has made changes to the law in the past and can do so at any time. The law governing benefit amounts may change because, by 2037, the payroll taxes collected will be enough to pay only about 76 percent of scheduled benefits.”

There are a number of philosophical issues with a Social Security system.  The first is that it essentially requires that you work/live for the benefit of someone else.   To whatever extent you are living for someone else's benefit you are NOT living for your own.  Given that we are forced to live for others, as opposed to choosing to do it for your own reasons, we are not free.  As Ayn Rand put it, "Living for others is slavery -- and nothing else whatever -- and no names, ends or excuses can alter the fact."

Contrary to popular belief, the government is not saving and investing your contributions in order to give you income during your retirement.  Rather, money paid in today is used to pay benefits to those collecting them today.  In the past, more revenue was collected in payroll taxes than was needed to pay the current benefits and the surplus was used to fund other parts of the government in return for IOUs (Treasury bonds) which  were put in the "Trust Fund."  Now that payroll taxes are no longer covering current benefits, bonds from the "Trust Fund" need to be redeemed.  Which means the cash needed to pay shortfall is coming from general tax revenues further burdening current tax payers.  This latter problem will worsen as demographics catch up with us and there are fewer and fewer workers paying taxes to support retirees.  In the 1930s it was about 17 workers for 1 retiree and now it is approaching 2 to 1.

There have been a number of models for privatizing Social Security which would appear to remove the issue of requiring people to work for the sake of others.  Two of the more often mentioned systems are those of Chile and Galveston, Brazoria and Matagorda counties in Texas.

Chile converted their system from an untenable government run system to a privately invested system where the individuals can decide how their money is invested.  So far this seems to a lot of improvements over the government run system.  One interesting side effect is that savings rates are higher than before the private system which certainly helps long term growth.

The three counties in Texas took advantage of a since-closed loophole in the law and opted out of Social Security in 1981 and convert to a privately invested system.  These counties pool the contributions and then money management firms bid to manage this money with certain restrictions on guaranteeing rates of returns. Even the report from the Social Security Administration indicates that in many ways the private program is as good and often better than Social Security.  In the areas where it appears Social Security is better it is unclear whether the figures given for Social Security include the reduction in benefits that would appear to certain to occur around 2037 (the examples given in the report are for workers retiring in 2045).  Assuming the government doesn't increase payroll taxes by about 1/3, at current estimates, then benefits as noted above would be reduced by 24% making the private plan in these counties better in pretty much all areas.

The problem with both of the above alternatives is that they use government force to compel the workers involved to participate.  (Well, in the case of the counties in Texas, workers are compelled to either participate in the private plan or social security.)   While the government properly should have the monopoly on the use of force in a civilized society, this force should only be used in retaliation against those who initiation the use of force unlawfully.  The government should never be the initiator of force against the innocent.

When the government uses force to compel behavior, or prevent behavior that does not infringe on the rights of others, it effectively takes away our right to use our own mind and reason to decide what the best course of action for ourselves is.  When the government compels someone to save X% of their income towards retirement it precludes the person from using that money for something else.

Maybe the person would like to start their own business but because of such a law they would be unable to save the money needed to begin, or would be so delayed that the opportunity would disappear and the person's future be worse off as a consequence.  Maybe the person would decide to take a trip, buy a new computer or whatever and not bother with saving for the future.  Either way, man's most important right, the one he cannot truly live without, is the right to live his life as he sees fit based on his own reason.

Below is Yaron Brook of the Ayn Rand Institute discussing the entitlement problem in the United States.

So my feeling is the the ultimate answer is essentially the same as what Yaron speaks of in the video.  As I put it in response to the tweet quoted above:

or how about phasing out Social Security all together and let individuals plan for themselves?

After I started writing this post, I noticed I had a reply to my response.  I was a little surprised, but pleasantly so, given my preconception based on the initial reply:

That would be the best idea, since it isn't a "retirement plan" and is nothing more than an entitlement program.

Regards