Bernanke: Baby Boomers Will Strain U.S.

Unless Social Security and Medicare are revamped, the massive burden from retiring baby boomers will place major strains on the nation’s budget and the economy, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said Wednesday.

"Reform of our unsustainable entitlement programs" should be a priority, he said in prepared remarks to the Economics Club of Washington. "The imperative to undertake reform earlier rather than later is great," Bernanke added.

It marked the Fed chief’s most extensive comments to date on the challenges facing the United States with the looming retirement of 78 million baby boomers.

In his remarks, Bernanke did not offer Congress and the Bush administration recommendations on how the massive entitlement programs should be changed. Efforts by the administration to overhaul the Social Security program - once a centerpiece of President Bush’s second-term agenda - sputtered last year, meeting resistance from Republicans and Democrats alike.

As the population ages, the nation will have to choose among higher taxes, less non-entitlement spending by the government, a reduction in spending on entitlement programs, a sharply higher budget deficit or some combination thereof, Bernanke said.

Can you say DUH!!!?

Also here.

And coincidentally I find this:

Democrats Reviving Social Security Issue

Social Security has drifted out of the national debate, but Democrats, eyeing the senior vote, are trying to revive the issue - just in time for the midterm elections.

Democratic leaders are advising their party’s congressional candidates to focus on what the Republicans might do to Social Security given the chance.

I despise the hint of demagoguing, but lets drop that for a moment.

Regardless of who wants to get an pre-election octane boost out of this, something needs to be addressed about Social Security.

To democrats and republicans alike:  Get off your lazy partisan asses and do something.

And that’s all I have to say about that.  For now.

No I kid you not.  That is the claim of a GA woman who is seeking to ban Harry Potter in schools.

She claims that references to witches are an attempt to indoctrinate kids into Wicca.

Ga. Mother Seeks Harry Potter Ban

A suburban county that sparked a public outcry when its libraries temporarily eliminated funding for Spanish-language fiction is now being asked to ban Harry Potter books from its schools.

Laura Mallory, a mother of four, told a hearing officer for the Gwinnett County Board of Education on Tuesday that the popular fiction series are an "evil" attempt to indoctrinate children in the Wicca religion.

Some common sense prevails:

Board of Education attorney Victoria Sweeny said that if schools were to remove all books containing reference to witches, they would have to ban "Macbeth" and "Cinderella."

"There’s a mountain of evidence for keeping Harry Potter," she said, adding that the books don’t support any particular religion but present instead universal themes of friendship and overcoming adversity.

But she has continued her allegations:

‘Ban Harry Potter or face more school shootings’

Referring to the recent rash of deadly assaults at schools, Mallory said books that promote evil - as she claims the Potter ones do - help foster the kind of culture where school shootings happen.

That would not happen if students instead read the Bible, Mallory said.

(Which ironically is in the news as well)

And as one of my commentors (possum) will likely again note, the bible is awash with stories of lust, murder, war, genocide etc ad naseum.

She added that the books were harmful to children who are unable to differentiate between reality and fantasy

Well duh.  maybe some parents need to step up.  After all, even Sesame Street, The Muppets, Veggie tales and Narnia are harmful to a kid that cannot seperate reality.

The children, she said, try to imitate Harry Potter and cast spells on classmates.

We used to play army and shoot each other, but as of yet I have not seen any of my classmates in jail for mass murder.

I get to go to court this morning.  My son committed a crime and has a mitigation hearing on his fine.  Actually, to be technical, it wasn’t a crime, it was a civil infraction, a sort of non driving speeding ticket.

His crime? Possession of  tobacco by a minor.

I don’t personally smoke, I quit that habit in 1991, and when I tried to restart in 1997, I got so sick I gave up.  And I am no particular fan of smoking anyway, as my late mother in law had lung cancer (though she died of other causes) and my mother presently is in a kind of semi remission in her own battle with the disease.

But other parents do, and of course our kids learn by example, so there you go.   Kids will smoke.  Then peer pressure moves in and they help other kids learn.  Despite the more then sufficient evidence of it’s dangers, kids still are attracted to the lure and learn to smoke at young ages (he is 16).

But the ban bothers me, as does the social stigma against the smokers, as outlined in my previous blog entries:

California Smoking Ban bans smoking in some private homes

Danger and denial of care for elderly residents.

Why?  because if our society had a real concern, if we really were convinced that smoking was dangerous, and if we had any balls we would ban the sale and manufacture of the damn things in the first place.

Seriously.  Why are they legal?  What other known cancer causing agent is openly sold in your local Convenience store?  Even Al Gore has now pounced on he anti smoking band wagon.  Why?  Well it appears that Al believes it is a "significant" contributor to global warming".

OK, whatever.  Some days I wonder what Gore is smoking himself.

But assume he is right.  Ban them.  Burn the fields out (the delicious irony) and end the this debate. 

So why don’t we?  Well it isn’t because of Mr Clinton’s love of a fine cigar.