Perhaps the principal football matter related to the pending sale of the Minnesota Vikings is whether Reggie Fowler will choose to keep or to trade receiver Randy Moss. The question would most likely be driven by the possible local reaction to such a move.

It’s common knowledge that Fowler will be trying to get a new stadium for the team from the time he is approved by the NFL and signs his name on the check that he will give to Red McCombs. For any hope of a new stadium, Fowler will need the public on his side. Trade Moss and he'll risk alienating the people who are in best position to rally around new ownership in its inevitable quest for the new venue that McCombs and his car salesman demeanor simply couldn't obtain. If Fowler gets the Vikes, my bold prediction is that Moss stays.

Moss and the Broncos

Word out of Denver is that the Broncos are shopping former Pro Bowl defensive lineman Trevor Pryce.

Pryce, a once dominant defensive tackle, moved to defensive end in 2002 and remains the best defensive lineman on the roster. He missed most of the 2004 season after undergoing back surgery in September.

The team's willingness to part with Pryce arises from its impending shift from a 4-3 front to the 3-4. The thinking is that the need for a high-priced defensive end is reduced in this new alignment, since the ends primarily are expected to tie up blockers so that the linebackers can make plays.

Pryce, 29, was the 28th player taken in the 1997 draft. In 2001, there were rumors of a possible trade of Pryce straight up for Vikings receiver Randy Moss, before Moss signed a long-term extension to stay in Minnesota. If Pryce is healthy, look for those rumors to rekindle.

Links and Tidbits

Vikings Set to Name QBs Coach.

Taxpayers Against an Anoka County Vikings Stadium.Wow, they even have a petition. Maybe I could start a Taxpayers Against the Taxpayers Against an Anoka County Vikings Stadium?

From the Sidelines

What Social Security Crisis?

Social Security's first beneficiary was Ernest Ackerman of Cleveland, Ohio, who retired one day after the Social Security Act was signed into law 14 August, 1935. A nickel was withheld from Ackerman's final paycheck, but he received his one-time lump-sum Social Security payment, which was 17 cents.

That 12-cent return was the beginning of unforeseen things to come. Soon, congressional amendments added benefits for spouses, minor children and survivors, and by 1950 the program assured virtually universal coverage. 1972 saw the addition of the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program (AKA "welfare"), and by 1975 the addition of annual Cost of Living Adjustments (COLAs) assured the SS juggernaut's exponential growth. In 1977, Medicare became an independent entitlement, spun off from the Social Security system. Today, despite its humble beginnings, the Social Security system confronts our young people with the grim prospect of paying for unfunded promises made to past generations.

Notwithstanding the "welfare reform" acts of the 1990s, when Social Security turned 65, SSI benefits covered 6,688,489 Americans at a cost of $32,165,856,000, while Social Security itself disbursed some $431,949,000,000 to 45,877,506 beneficiaries. However, those staggering numbers are mere chump change compared to what lies ahead.

President George W. Bush's modest proposal to reform Social Security appears to be a good start at diverting this behemoth from its collision course with insolvency. Predictably, though, the latest retort from the Left is, "What insolvency? What crisis?" Indeed, these do-nothing Demos claim the Fed's IOUs in Social Security's so-called "trust fund," combined with minor tweaks to the system, will keep it solvent for generations.

The President's three-year PRA opt-in for SSI taxpayers born after 1950 would allow them to put up to four percent of their wages in their PRAs. At retirement, those invested in PRAs would be guaranteed to receive at least what their payout would be if they only had SSI income. But those beneficiaries whose PRAs have a higher return can share in that return, which reduces the burden on the SSI fund, and the principal balance is fully inheritable.

Quote of the week...

"Personal retirement accounts should be familiar to [members of Congress], because you already have something similar, called the Thrift Savings Plan, which lets [you] deposit a portion of [your] paychecks into any of five different broadly-based investment funds. It's time to extend the same security, and choice, and ownership to young Americans." --President George W. Bush

Good idea....

"My financial adviser Ric Edelman...thinks the time to start educating people about money is when they are children. He's set up a retirement plan called the RIC-E-Trust that can provide retirement security. A $5,000 one-time tax-deferred investment at birth, with an average interest rate of ten percent compounded, means that a child would have $2.4 million when he or she is 65 years old. Who needs Social Security with that kind of nest egg?" --Cal Thomas

This week's "Democrat Jackass" award

"Do I know of a senator who will support privatization of Social Security? The answer is no. No, I don't know of a single Democratic [sic] senator. They all agree that there should be no privatization of Social Security. I agree with them." --Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nial)

This week's "Braying Jackass" award

"Back on September 11, terrorists attacked our metropolitan cores, two of America's great cities. Years later, we are given a budget proposal by our commander in chief, the president of the United States. And, with a budget ax, he is attacking America's cities. He is attacking our metropolitan core." --Baltimore mayor Martin O'Malley, comparing President Bush to Mohamed Atta & Co.

Posted by maasx003 at February 14, 2005 02:25 PM | TrackBack