Very Serious Question

Don’t know about states, but some groups were allowed to opt out of social security. My mother has alternative retirement benefits and not social security.found this explanation:There are a number of groups of workers who are exempted from having to pay Social Security taxes:* Federal employees hired before 1984 who elected to continue to participate in the federal retirement program instead of receiving part of their retirement under Social Security coverage.* State or local government workers (police officers, firefighters, and teachers) hired before March 31, 1986 and participating in their employers’ alternative retirement system.* Ministers may choose whether or not they will participate in the Social Security program.* Self-employed workers with annual net earnings below $400.* Election workers earning $1,000 or less a year.* Household workers earning less than $1,500 per year.* Minor children with earnings from household work but for whom household work is not their principal occupation.* College students working under Federal Work Study programs, graduate students receiving stipends while working as teaching assistants, research assistants, or on fellowships, and most postdoctoral researchers.* Individuals who are members of certain religious groups such as the Amish and Mennonites.Before the 1983 changes, three counties in Texas (Galveston, Brazoria, and Matagorda) opted out of the system and now use an Alternate Plan, a private pension plan created and administered by First Financial Benefits, Inc.In 1983, the U.S. Congress closed a loophole in the original Social Security Act that allowed municipal governments to opt out of the Social Security system, and also brought all civilian federal employees whose employment began in 1984 or later under the system.

You guys correct me if I am wrong, but didn’t Reagan link Federal highway funds for making the legal drinking age 21? In NC, legal age at the time was just raised to 19. I was legal a whole three months. Always hated that.

He did, Vera. In fact, the Southern Boy in me wanted Georgia to tell him to go stick it. That was back when I had a brain that pretty much supported that kind of States’ Rights bullshit.

Actually “opt out” is very smart politically.If a state opts out, those who are adversely effected get to vote!Score one for Harry Reid!And, I trust him! He pisses me off sometimes, but I’m beginning to think he knows just exactly how to get something done.It won’t be what I’d like but it will be a start in the right direction!

Eve,The guy that delivers my food is a retired pastor in his 70′s.He’s a good man, but he was “opted out” of Social Security.Then his church went teats up!

I believe if you look for it, you’ll find instances in which states “opted out” of federal funds for abstinence-only education (2007 & 2008 if memory serves me). Elsewhere, there were instances in which school districts elected to refuse federal funds rather than participate in No Child Left Behind, but only when said funds were a minuscule portion of their budgets. . . later, I believe some states decided to back out of the program all-together. Elsewhere, many southern school districts (and a few state systems) refused federal funding for school lunch programs in the 1960s until it became politically unfeasible, usually due to pressure from hunger organizations and women’s church groups, as well as scrutiny from northern media. So, “opting-out” does happen, but it’s usually short-lived, or towards the tail end of a short-lived (and failing) federal program.I’m sure there are more examples, but these were the ones I could think of off the top of my head.

Kansasdem, We’ve also seen lots of pension funds go belly up. Tragic. Sorry for that pastor.

Michele Bachmann led a successful campaign to opt out Minnesota from Goals 2000 because it taught kids to identify with non-Christians.

Michele Bachman also led a successful campaign to opt-out of reality.

HA! DC–beautimous

As others has pointed out, states have opted out of plently of programs but the analogy to Social Security isn’t particularly apt because the social security bill didn’t send billions to an industry that was bent on destroying Social Security.Don’t you think there will be tremendous pressure from private insurance companies for politicians who get lobbying money to get their states to opt out? These insurance companies will be newly flush with cash, too.And since the CBO says that the public option the house passed will cost more, I don’t think there will be any sort of voter revolt. In fact, I’m going to guess right now you’ll be hearing Red States brag that they have lower rates with NO Public Option then some states with it. It will be part of the insurance industry’s campaign to destroy the public option.As RJ Esknow said…Many of my friends and colleagues still say most states wouldn’t dare opt-out and face the public’s wrath. I still say they’re dreaming — especially after that CBO report. A candidate for Governor in Virginia already said he’s leaning toward opting out – and he was the Democrat.

*yawn* did a Lee fall in the forest?

A candidate for Governor in Virginia already said he’s leaning toward opting out – and he was the Democrat.

The asshat that won Virgina didn’t waffle at all. He said he would opt out. And with r’s controlling the legislature, too, he could make that reality if he follows through.

I’m sure Obama has read Chomsky…“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum – even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.”

It was a really wrenching decision, but I finally decided to shit-can my support of this bill. It’s just too flawed, and Stupak was the last straw.

Lee:>>>>>>It will be part of the insurance industry’s campaign to destroy the public option.So KILL IT! KILL THE PUBLIC OPTION! KILL REFORM NOW! Beat them to the punch!>>>>>>These insurance companies will be newly flush with cash, too.What do you think will happen with no bill at all?

An Opt-out…hmmm. Whatever.I’ve now read four hundred pages of the actual bill, and have been keeping track of actual Policy Statements within it. So far, we have fifteen. All the rest is utter, uber- and- oft- repeated- gobbledygook. So much for the Paperwork reduction act. 1,000,000 million trees bite the dust.You know, maybe if we left the lawyers out of the bill writing process, people might actually understand this bill enough to say, “Yes, I can agree with this”. Most people aren’t as stupidly stubborn as me, nor are they as fascinated with bad, legalese-istic adjective laden poetry as I am.This bill just might be the world’s longest poem. I’m going to bludgeon myself through, taking my notes, but at the pace we are, it’s looking like there about 70 actual policy changes in the bill.Hey, what else am I going to do while sitting on the toilet?

I’m in favor of actual reform, not Kabuki reform. People are seeing that this bill isn’t going to be a first step but a step backwards.As RJ says in his latest piece…What went wrong? Why did we get such a weak bill, compounded by the violation of women’s rights and dignity that has come to be called the “Stupak Amendment”? To a certain extent it represents the messiness of the legislative process, made more difficult by Rahm Emanuel’s misguided strategy of recruiting conservative candidates and calling them Democrats.Then there was the White House’s cynical, hands-off approach to the process. After all, if you don’t commit to any particular policy plank as being “the president’s reform,” you win no matter what passes. My heart sank during the president’s health care speech when he said “I am not the first president to take up this cause, but I am determined to be the last.” I felt then that he would not fight for the best bill, but was determined to win any old bill, as long as it could be called “health reform.”

Lee, we all know what you think as you’ve told us over and over again. But now it’s your turn to answer Bob’s question:”What do you think will happen with no bill at all?”

Lee, we all know what you think as you’ve told us over and over again.

I, for one, have no idea what the Stranaterri Napkin is thinking, because all he ever does is tell me what RJ Eskow is thinking.

Come back, Lee, when you have an original thought.

Ah, the great state of Alaska–full of pinheads. I’m awash in a sea of tea baggers and libertarian nihilists. Here’s my list of Arizona greatest “we will not do what is good for us” hits:* original Medicaid opt-out per Bob* didn’t approve funding for all-day kindergarten until recently (2007 or and our budget is so messed up that they’re talking about getting rid of it again. This means working mothers will be screwed out of millions they now have to pay for extra childcare AND our kids will be further behind educationally.* bilingual education (nevermind that 1/3 or more of the population in 2008 was hispanic)* is seeking to opt out of No Child Left Behind (which I hate the program but there’s nothing to replace it with, we need SOME standards)* “Real ID” security required by Federal Law for driver’s license (not entirely sure on status of this)* a lot of the stimulus money was just sitting there…finally split up amongst County Attorney’s office and Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s anti-immigration initiative (some of it was spent on positive things like light rail)Need I go on?*

oops, I was thinking Arizona but typed Alaska….Damn that Palin woman, she’s like a cancer of the subconscious….