Patch

Retirement: Your savings: How much is enough?

By Paul J. Lim
Posted 3/8/06

Start early. The Schwab Center for Investment Research concluded that all workers should start saving 10 percent to 15 percent of their income in their 20s. If you wait until your 30s to start, then you need to set aside 15 percent to 25 percent of your income for the rest of your career. Workers who haven't started by their early 40s will need to sock away 25 percent to 35 percent of their incomes annually to make up for the lost time.

Save aggressively. One way to achieve this is to make the maximum contribution allowed into your 401k's and IRAs, which will probably put you close to 15 percent. You can also take advantage of catch-up provisions in tax-deferred retirement plans. However, don't think that you can play catch-up with the stock market. David Darst, chief investment strategist of Morgan Stanley's individual investor group, says today's young boomers are "facing relatively mundane and mediocre returns in the stock market." He predicts annual equity returns of around 6 percent to 8 percent per year, well below their historic long-term average of more than 10 percent. Moreover, Christine Fahlund, senior financial planner with T. Rowe Price, recently studied the probabilities of meeting retirement goals and discovered that saving more is a far more effective way to improve your odds of funding retirement than investing aggressively

Work longer. Even if it's only part time, an extra two years of work can drastically improve your retirement plan

This from the Social Security Administration; National Average Wage in 2004, $35,648.55 and from this they (?) want you to do all the above and also save for health care. Might be done if you don’t feed your wife and kids.

Read the whole article here.
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/biztech/articles/060308/8enoughsavings_retirement.htm




In December, the New York Times disclosed the NSA's warrantless electronic surveillance program, resulting in an angry reaction from President Bush. It has not previously been disclosed, however, that administration lawyers had cited the same legal authority to justify warrantless physical searches. But in a little-noticed white paper submitted by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to Congress on January 19 justifying the legality of the NSA eavesdropping, Justice Department lawyers made a tacit case that President Bush also has the inherent authority to order such physical searches

But John Martin, a former Justice Department attorney who prosecuted the two most important cases involving warrantless searches and surveillance, says the department is sending an unambiguous message to Congress. "They couldn't make it clearer," says Martin, "that they are also making the case for inherent presidential power to conduct warrantless physical searches."

Read the rest here.
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060327/27fbi.htm

President claims inherent rights

This spying would be troubling enough if you could make yourself believe that the government would target only suspected terrorist. But past history of government surveillance makes this difficult (Johnson/Nixon, remember Watergate/ Pentagon Papers). We already know that anti-war protester and environmental groups have been targeted and there you go. This stuff needs over site and external control to come anywhere near safe for Americans.

If we Americans accept the Bush Administrations argument that the President is above the law then we accept the loss of Democracy. What we then have is an elected Dictator, not a President.

And we are accepting this.

Look where the Cheney/Bush Administration is leading us, from the start keeping or trying to keep everything they do secret. Rule changes on environmental laws, worker rights done in the late night, secret meeting concerning policy on energy, cutting out public input and comment. Pre-empted war, torture, secret prisons in foreign nations, domestic spying that is growing in leaps and bounds.

Patch believes that the fight against terrorism could and can be won with existing laws; there was/is no need for the Constitution destroying Patriot Act and its enforcement arm the Dept. of Homeland Security. Patch also believes our government can operate in the open without all this secrecy.