CompuServe Thread

Paul, Hey, I was giving you (a liberal) credit for finally getting it right and now you say "NOT!" — hmmm, do you have a dog named Billy? Seriously, tho, there was not one Republican in any position of power that had anything to do with DIA. The former drug dealer attorney turned mayor of Denver (Federico Pena, now transportation secretary) pushed it through, along with help from Governor Roy Romer, (now former) Senators Tim Wirth and Gary Hart, and Congresscritter Pat Schroeder. The bottom line is that it's 3 years over due, $4B+ over budget, SEC and other investigations going on over the incompetence of Pena and current Denver mayor Wellington Webb (who appears to have granted construction contracts to relatives and cronies). Now, Continental Airlines is refusing to honor their contract for 20 gates, wants to cut it to 4, and, as of today, is refusing to pay their $3.5M gate fee — which the mayor is saying will have to be picked up by everyone else in increased gate fees, and that's in an airport that's already charging $40 extra per outbound ticket to help pay for the unbudgeted $4 billion in overruns. Then there's the cracking runways (the airport only opened 2 days ago), cracking marble floors, loading docks with canopies that are too low for tractor-trailers to back up under, and flight controllers who are saying the weather radars are less effective and less safe than those at Stapleton (the old airport). In general, DIA is an incredible example of 54 square miles of political incompetence. -sja

Paul, It was never intended that Social Security would be a welfare program. It was not intended to be just for the poverty-stricken – but was intended as a supplement to the income from the life-savings people had made throughout their working years. Thus, it was always intended for everyone who paid in to receive benefits. Had the money been properly managed, there would be plenty there to take care of the obligations, but Congress has been siphoning off the SS money for years – or borrowing from it. The problem is going to come when the SS fund needs the money Congress has borrowed, and Congress won't have the money to repay it. —Betty

Oh, come ON! You don't really believe that they are concerned about SS, do you. What really happened is that the Democratic Party collectively, and many members individually are frantically opposed to any limitations on spending. After all, they really have nothing else to offer these days but spending programs. (In any event, there IS no "trust fund." SS taxes go directly into the general fund, and are used for general spending. The "trust fund" is an ACCOUNTING notation that certain money is owed to the SS administration. Heck, if you look at Clinton's budgets, you will find SSI income added to general revenues and used to produce his cooked deficit numbers.) The rub is, the public overwhelmingly supports the amendment. So when a poll came out that said a slim majority opposed the BBA *if* it would cause cuts in Social Security, they seized on the issue like a drowning cat. It has provided political cover for a lot of hypocritical Democrats who campaigned last year on their support FOR a BBA, like Dianne Feinstein. After all, the poor Democrats thought that it was perfectly safe to support the Amendment then, since they knew the Democratic leadership would keep any such amendment from getting to the floor of either the House or the Senate. Now, that is what MOST of us see as lying though your teeth, but something that is becoming more and more common in Democratic campaigns. They really have little choice, they certainly can't campaign on the issues. Not and win, anyway. (There were at least THREE Senators who both voted AGAINST the BBA *and* had campaigned as supporting one. All Democrats, naturally.) When your constituents don't agree with your real positions, tell them what they want to hear. I expect, though, that the public has a longer memory than they think, and they will greatly regret this vote. -Karl