Category Archives: Social Security

Ken Aden: Social Security is not a Ponzi Scheme and those who want to cut it are criminals

December 6, 2011 – 3:06 pm

Ken Aden is running for Congress against Steve Womack in Arkansas’ third district. He believes Social Security is not a Ponzi Scheme and those who want to cut it are criminals. I was reading on the leftwing blog “Blue Arkansas” about Ken Alden and I got this video clip which is below:

It is my view that the wise thing would be to allow people to invest in personal retirement funds with a portion of the money that is going to Social Security now.

Saving Social Security with Personal Retirement Accounts

Uploaded by  on Jan 10, 2011

There are two crises facing Social Security. First the program has a gigantic unfunded liability, largely thanks to demographics. Second, the program is a very bad deal for younger workers, making them pay record amounts of tax in exchange for comparatively meager benefits. This video explains how personal accounts can solve both problems, and also notes that nations as varied as Australia, Chile, Sweden, and Hong Kong have implemented this pro-growth reform. http://www.freedomandprosperity.org

____________________

Governor Rick Perry got in trouble for calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme and I totally agree with that. This is a series of articles that look at this issue.

Social Security Demagoguery from Mitt Romney and Michele Bachmann: Economically Wrong, Politically Wrong

Posted by Daniel J. Mitchell

Governor Rick Perry of Texas is being attacked by two rivals in the GOP presidential race. His sin, if you can believe it, is that he told the truth (as acknowledged by everyone from Paul Krugman to Milton Friedman) about Social Security being a Ponzi scheme.

Here’s an excerpt from Philip Klein’s column in the Examiner, looking at how Mitt Romney is criticizing Perry.

Mitt Romney doubled down on his attack against Texas Gov. Rick Perry this afternoon, warning in an interview with Sean Hannity that his critique of Social Security amounted to “terrible politics” that would cost Republicans the election. Romney’s decision to pile on suggests that he’s willing to play the “granny card” against Perry if it will help him get elected, a tactic more becoming of the likes of DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz than a potential Republican nominee.

And here’s a Byron York column from the Examiner looking at how Michele Bachmann is taking the same approach.

…another Republican rival, Michele Bachmann, is preparing to hit Perry on the same issue. “Bernie Madoff deals with Ponzi schemes, not the grandparents of America,” says a Bachmann adviser.  “Clearly she feels differently about the value of Social Security than Gov. Perry does.  She believes Social Security needs to be saved, that it’s an important safety net for Americans who have paid into it all their lives.” … “She strongly disagrees with his position on that…”

Shame on Romney and Bachmann. With an inflation-adjusted long-run shortfall of about $28 trillion, Social Security is a Ponzi scheme on steroids.

But as I explain in this video, that’s just part of the problem. The program also is a terrible deal for workers, particularly young people and minorities.

Here’s what’s so frustrating. Romney and Bachmann almost certainly understand that Social Security is actuarially bankrupt. And they probably realize that personal retirement accounts are the only long-run answer.

But they’re letting political ambition lure them into saying things that they know are not true. Why? Because they think Perry will lose votes and they can improve their respective chances of getting the GOP nomination.

Sounds like a smart approach, assuming truth and morality don’t matter.

But here’s what’s so ironic. The Romney and Bachmann strategy is only astute if Social Security is sacrosanct and personal accounts are political poison.

But as I noted last year, the American public supports personal accounts by a hefty margin. And former President Bush won two elections while supporting Social Security reform. And election-day polls confirmed that voters supported personal accounts.

I’m not a political scientist, so maybe something has changed, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Perry benefited from the left-wing demagoguery being utilized by Romney and Bachmann.

P.S. This does not mean Perry has the right answer. As far as I know, he hasn’t endorsed personal accounts. But at least he’s telling the truth about Social Security being unsustainable.

Related posts:

Social Security is a Ponzi scheme (Part 12)

U.S. Senator Rand Paul Speaks at Cato University 2011 Uploaded by catoinstitutevideo on Sep 6, 2011 http://www.cato.org/multimedia/subscribe.php U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) spoke at this year’s Cato University on everything from national healthcare and the commerce clause to spending cuts and social security reform. Cato University is the Cato Institute’s premier educational event of the […]

 

Social Security is a Ponzi scheme (Part 11)

Dan Mitchell on Social Security Uploaded by catoinstitutevideo on Aug 19, 2010 Discussing the troubles facing social security, with Mark Walsh, Left Jab host and Dan Mitchell, Cato Institute. Social Security is a Ponzi scheme (Part 4) Governor Rick Perry got in trouble for calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme and I totally agree with […]

 

Milton Friedman discusses Reagan and Reagan discusses Friedman

Uploaded by YAFTV on Aug 19, 2009 Nobel Laureate Dr. Milton Friedman discusses the principles of Ronald Reagan during this talk for students at Young America’s Foundation’s 25th annual National Conservative Student Conference MILTON FRIEDMAN ON RONALD REAGAN In Friday’s WSJ, Milton Friedman reflectedon Ronald Reagan’s legacy. (The link should work for a few more […]

 

Social Security is a Ponzi scheme (Part 10)

Milton Friedman – The Social Security Myth Uploaded by LibertyPen on Mar 5, 2010 Using Social Security as his prime example, Professor Friedman explodes the myth that the major expansions in government resulted from popular demand. In a speech delivered more than 30 years ago, he directly relates this dynamic to today’s health care debate. […]

 

Rick Perry’s answer in Republican debate of October 11, 2011 (with video clip)

I really like Rick Perry because he was right when he called Social Security a “Ponzi Scheme” which it is. How did he do in the last debate? You be the judge by watching his response above. Rick Perry’s Moment Posted by Roger Pilon Last night POLITICO Arena asked: Who won the Reagan debate? My […]

 

Cain’s 9-9-9 plan center stage at Republican debate of October 11, 2011 (with video clip)

Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan did steal the show at the Republican debate of October 11, 2011. Take a look at this article below: The Republican presidential debate in Hanover, N.H. (AP) There was one clear winner from Tuesday’s Republican presidential debate, based on the simple metrics of name recognition: businessman Herman Cain’s “9-9-9 Plan.” Virtually […]

 

Social Security is a Ponzi scheme (Part 9)

Sen. Hutchison Speaks at the Heritage Foundation Forum on Saving Social Security Uploaded by SenatorHutchison on Jun 21, 2011 Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison delivered remarks regarding her landmark proposal on entitlement reform, the Defend and Save Social Security Act at the Heritage Foundation’s “Saving Social Security” event. Sen. Hutchison announced that Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ), […]

 

Social Security is a Ponzi scheme (Part 8)

IOUSA Solutions: Part 1 of 5 Uploaded by LibertyPen on Jan 8, 2009 Professor Williams explains what’s ahead for Social Security Governor Rick Perry got in trouble for calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme and I totally agree with that. This is a series of articles that look at this issue. The Case for (Carve-Out) […]

 

Social Security is a Ponzi scheme (Part 7)

Social Security is a Ponzi scheme (Part 7) IOUSA Solutions: Part 2 of 5 Governor Rick Perry got in trouble for calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme and I totally agree with that. This is a series of articles that look at this issue. Personal Accounts Build More Than Just Assets by Andrew Biggs This article […]

 

Social Security is a Ponzi scheme (Part 6)

Further Reforms to Modernize Social Security — Saving the American Dream Uploaded by HeritageFoundation on May 24, 2011 http://www.savingthedream.org | Currently deep in debt, America’s Social Security program doesn’t look very secure. Today there is a new plan to get it back on track. David John, Senior Research Fellow in Retirement Security at The Heritage […]

 

Republicans need to tackle runaway entitlement spending

Republicans need to tackle runaway entitlement spending Uploaded by NatlTaxpayersUnion on Feb 15, 2011 Dan Mitchell, Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, speaks at Moving Forward on Entitlements: Practical Steps to Reform, NTUF’s entitlement reform event at CPAC, on Feb. 11, 2011. __________________________ I am disappointed in some of the Republicans who do not want […]

 

Ron Paul, Rick Perry and Mitt Romney have the money coming in

I really like Ron Paul and Rick Perry. Only three Republican presidential candidates are worth any money _ campaign money, that is. Mitt Romney, Rick Perry and Ron Paul have banked millions. But the other GOP candidates are struggling or broke, putting their candidacies in question four months before the first nominating contests take place. […]

 

Rick Perry says Social Security is a Ponzi scheme

Rick Perry says Social Security is a Ponzi scheme Rick Perry and Mitt Romney went after each other at the debate over this term “Ponzi scheme.” Over and over Rick Perry has said that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme and I agree with him. John Brummett asserted,”Rick Perry was last week’s savior, but then he […]

 

Social Security is a Ponzi scheme (Part 5)

 IOUSA Solutions: Part 3 of 5 Uploaded by IOUSAtheMovie on Aug 25, 2010 The award-winning documentary I.O.U.S.A. opened up America’s eyes to the consequences of our nation’s debt and the need for our government to show more fiscal responsibility. Now that more Americans and elected officials are aware of our fiscal challenges, the producers of […]

 

Social Security is a Ponzi scheme (Part 4)

Social Security is a Ponzi scheme (Part 4) Governor Rick Perry got in trouble for calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme and I totally agree with that. This is a series of articles that look at this issue. Trains, Pensions, and Economic Freedom by Timothy B. Lee This article appeared on Forbes.com on August 17, 2011. recently […]

 

Social Security is a Ponzi scheme (Part 3)

Social Security is a Ponzi scheme (Part 3) Governor Rick Perry got in trouble for calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme and I totally agree with that. This is a series of articles that look at this issue. Personal Accounts and the Savings Rate by Timothy B. Lee This article appeared on Forbes.com on September 11, 2011 […]

 

Rick Perry’s Ponzi-scheme claim is in no way unprecedented

Rick Perry and Mitt Romney went after each other at the debate over this term “Ponzi scheme.” Janet M. LaRue   Romney’s Ponzi Phobia 9/19/2011 When it comes to Social Security, Republicans should stop treating seniors like the feeble-minded demographic portrayed in commercials written by 13-year-olds on Madison Avenue. It’s like the home security commercial […]

 

Social Security is a Ponzi scheme (Part 2)

Social Security is a Ponzi scheme (Part 2) John Stossel – Government’s Ponzi Scheme Uploaded by LibertyPen on Apr 21, 2010 A look at the Social Security system. By contrast, Bernie Madoff seems like a shoplifter. http://www.LibertyPen.com Uploaded by LibertyPen on Jan 8, 2009 Professor Williams explains what’s ahead for Social Security ______________________________ Governor Rick […]

 

Only difference between Ponzi scheme and Social Security is you can say no to Ponzi Scheme jh2d

Is Social Security  a Ponzi Scheme? I just started a series on this subject. In this article below you will see where the name “Ponzi scheme” came from and if it should be applied to the Social Security System. Ponzi! Ponzi! Ponzi! 9/14/2011 | Email John Stossel | Columnist’s Archive Ponzi! Ponzi! Ponzi! There, I […]

 

Despite Brantley’s view,Social Security really is a Ponzi scheme (Part 1) (jh1d)

Social Security is a Ponzi scheme (Part 1) Governor Rick Perry got in trouble for calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme and I totally agree with that. Max Brantley wants to keep insisting that this will be Perry’s downfall but  think that truth will win out this time around. This is a series of articles […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in Cato Institute, Milton Friedman | Tagged , , , | Comments (0)

Senator Obama’s ideas on Social Security

December 5, 2011 – 8:09 am

 

Senator Obama’s Social Security Tax Plan

Uploaded by on Jul 23, 2008

In addition to several other tax increases, Senator Barack Obama wants to increase the Social Security payroll tax burden by imposing the tax on income above $250,000. This would be a sharp departure from current law, which only requires that the tax be imposed on the amount of income needed to “pay for” promised benefits. But more important, at least from an economic perspective, the Senator’s initiative would increase the top tax rate on productive behavior by as much as 12 percentage points – and this would be in addition to his proposal to kill the 2003 tax rate reductions and further boost the top rate by 4.6 percentage points. This mini-documentary explains why a big tax rate increase on highly productive people would be very damaging to America’s prosperity, especially in a competitive global economy. Simply stated, pushing top tax rates in the United States to French and German levels means at least some degree of French-style and German-style economic stagnation. Visit http://www.freedomandprosperity.org for more information.

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in Cato Institute, President Obama | Tagged , , , , , | Comments (0)

Brantley is upset Obama’s plan on Social Security tax was defeated

December 2, 2011 – 8:02 am

The liberal Arkansas Times Blogger Max Brantley wrote on 12-1-11:

Senate Republicans tonight defeated the payroll tax break for working Americans. President Obama’s statement: 

Tonight, Senate Republicans chose to raise taxes on nearly 160 million hardworking Americans because they refused to ask a few hundred thousand millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share. They voted against a bill that would have not only extended the $1,000 tax cut for a typical family, but expanded that tax cut to put an extra $1,500 in their pockets next year, and given nearly six million small business owners new incentives to expand and hire. That is unacceptable.It makes absolutely no sense to raise taxes on the middle class at a time when so many are still trying to get back on their feet. Now is not the time to put the economy and the security of the middle class at risk. Now is the time to rebuild an economy where hard work and responsibility pay off, and everybody has a chance to succeed. Now is the time to put country before party and work together on behalf of the American people. And I will continue to urge Congress to stop playing politics with the security of millions of American families and small business owners and get this done.

 Now the Republicans will offer their plan to give a cut by screwing working people.

___________________-

Brantley does not explain why the economy has not been stimulated at all by ANYTHING THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS TRIED SO FAR!!! Then why should this payroll tax holiday be extended?

This article below from the Cato Institute does a good job of showing the Republicans were right to vote against Obama’s plan.

President Obama’s $447 Billion Tax Increase

Posted by Alan Reynolds

In his September 8 lecture to Congress, President Obama promised that “every proposal I’ve laid out tonight will be paid for.”  How?  By raising tax rates on “the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations.” In other words, the President is proposing a $447 billion tax increase.

When the details are revealed on September 19, the President will be proposing large and permanent increases in the highest income tax rates − mainly to “pay for” a small and temporary cut in payroll taxes (which accounts for 54 percent of his $447 billion package).  The plan is likely to contain elements of the September 7 proposal of Congressional Democrats to the super-committee — such as a draconian “super-Pease” phase-out and cap on itemized deductions, and a top marginal tax rate of 48.8 percent in 2013.

Temporary payroll tax cuts and extended unemployment benefits are bait the President set out to trap House Republicans with their own debt ceiling demands.

“The agreement we passed in July,” said the President, “will cut government spending by about $1 trillion over the next 10 years. It also charges this Congress to come up with an additional $1.5 trillion in savings by Christmas. Tonight, I am asking you to increase that amount so that it covers the full cost of the American Jobs Act.”   But the $447 billion budgetary hit can’t be spread over 10 years without triggering another debt ceiling calamity.  Either the debt ceiling has to be promptly raised by an extra $447 billion or tax receipts somehow raised by that amount in fiscal 2012-2013.   Any “modest adjustments to health care” will be too distant and nebulous to help.

Using permanently higher tax rates on income to pay for temporarily lower tax rates on payrolls is no “stimulus” under either Keynesian or empirical economics.  Neither is a tax-financed extension of unemployment benefits, which clearly raises the unemployment rate by 0.8 to 1.8 percentage points.   Yet the one-year extension of payroll tax cuts and 99-week unemployment benefits is being held out as irresistible bait to gullible legislators.

By inviting House Republicans to stumble into this trap, the president is also hoping to preempt the congressional super-committee’s option of reducing deficits by trimming tax loopholes.  President Obama is trying to lay claim to any potential revenues from cutting loopholes (or legitimate deductions) for his own pet projects, which include grants to hire more state and local government workers and extended unemployment benefits for the private sector.

This is no “jobs plan.”  It’s a tax-and-spend plan, and a bad one.

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in Cato Institute | Tagged , , , , | Comments (0)

Spending still going up

December 1, 2011 – 12:49 am

Great article from Heritage Foundation:

Super Failure: No Spending Cuts, and the Debt Keeps Rising

Emily Goff

November 22, 2011 at 2:15 pm

With the failure of the super committee to recommend at least $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction, Congress’s latest attempt at budget control has collapsed. There will be many analyses of why the process did not work, but it’s worth stepping back to recall what generated the need for this extraordinary procedure and what the exercise actually produced.

From early in the year, it was generally accepted that the divided Congress would be unable to agree on a budget through regular procedures. Republicans chose to use a necessary vote on the debt limit to force the Administration to face the need for spending reductions. After a summer-long debate, rife with hyperbole about a potential government “default,” the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA) was born, crafted in a way that at face value expressed the goal of fiscal prudence.

The BCA both imposed a set of discretionary spending caps to limit annually appropriated spending and established the super committee to recommend policies that would reduce the deficit by at least an additional $1.2 trillion through 2021. In return, the BCA included debt limit increases in three tranches: $400 billion, $500 billion, and then $1.2 trillion, as the chart below illustrates.

The debt limit hikes were ostensibly contingent on deficit reduction and a vote on a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. But in fact, under the language of the BCA legislation, they could be blocked only if Congress passed a joint resolution of disapproval. If passed, such a resolution would be subject to a presidential veto, requiring the usual two-thirds vote of both houses to override. Thus these debt ceiling increases up to $2.1 trillion were all but assured from the beginning. (Article continued below chart)

The first two increases totaling $900 billion have already occurred, and the debt limit now stands at an astounding $15.124 trillion. It is up from the $14.29 trillion limit set in early 2010 and follows a history of frequent and growing debt limit increases, as shown in this Heritage Budget Chart Book chart. (Article continued below chart)

The third increase of $1.2 trillion—projected to occur early in 2012 when the debt begins to again encroach upon the limit—would raise the debt limit to an unprecedented $16.324 trillion, or over 100 percent of GDP.

Thus, the debt limit will climb ever higher, accommodating the profligate spending of the President and Congress. As Heritage’s J. D. Foster wrote in January: “The need to raise the debt limit reflects an intention to continue deficit financing” and should signal to Congress that it should urgently reexamine its current policy decisions.

Policies that promote reckless spending—forcing the government to borrow about 40 cents of every dollar it spends, while pushing total debt past 100 percent of gross domestic product (GDP)—are flat-out irresponsible. This upward trajectory makes it crystal clear that the government’s spending priorities have deviated severely from what the Founders laid out in the Constitution.

Equally disappointing, both the existing spending caps and the automatic enforcement in the BCA are less than advertised. The caps contain flaws that may make them all but meaningless. The “sequester” mechanism that would impose spending cuts will not be triggered until January 2013, giving Congress plenty of time to rewrite or abandon it.

As The Heritage Foundation’s David Addington writes, “The overspending problem is still here. Congress must still act to get the federal spending under control, in a thoughtful, intelligent manner that meets the needs of the American people.” It should do this without succumbing to pressure to hike taxes on Americans and further weigh down an already struggling economy. Remember, the problem is Washington’s spending.

Congress should demonstrate that it is serious about tackling the problems of rising spending, debt, and deficits. That means reforms to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security; transforming the maddeningly complicated tax system; and reducing the size and scope of government. In Saving the American Dream, The Heritage Foundation offers the kinds of bold solutions needed to put America back on a path toward fiscal sustainability and economic prosperity.

Posted in Entitlements, Featured
By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in Taxes | Tagged | Comments (0)

Grover Norquist is right, Brantley is wrong

November 28, 2011 – 8:55 am

Max Brantley went on another tyrade about raising taxes instead of cutting spending (“How to raise taxes,” Arkansas Times Blog, November 28, 2011). However, spending is the main problem and it appears that Democrats do not want to cut a dime. Instead, they blame Glover Norquist for all their problems.

Does Norquist deserve all the blame? Charles Krauthammer set the record straight below:

The Grover Norquist myth

Charles KrauthammerNovember 28, 2011
 

WASHINGTON — Democrats are unanimous in charging that the debt-reduction supercommittee collapsed because Republicans refused to raise taxes. Apparently, Republicans are in the thrall of one Grover Norquist, the anti-tax campaigner, whom Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., called “the 13th member of this committee without being there.” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid helpfully suggested “maybe they should impeach Grover Norquist.”

With that, Norquist officially replaces the Koch brothers as the great malevolent manipulator that controls the republic by pulling unseen strings on behalf of the plutocracy.

Nice theory. Except for the following facts:

•Sen. Tom Coburn last year signed on to the Simpson-Bowles tax reform that would have increased tax revenue by $1 trillion over a decade.

•During the debt-ceiling talks, House Speaker John Boehner agreed to an $800 billion revenue increase as part of a Grand Bargain.

•Supercommittee member Pat Toomey, a Club for Growth Republican, proposed increasing tax revenue by $300 billion as part of $1.2 trillion in debt reduction.

Leading, very conservative Republicans proposing tax increases. So why does the myth of the Norquist-controlled anti-tax monolith persist? You might suggest cynicism and perversity. Let me offer a more benign explanation: thickheadedness. Democrats simply can’t tell the difference between tax revenue and tax rates.

In deficit reduction, all that matters is tax revenue. The holders of our national debt care not a whit what tax rates yield the money to pay them back. They care about the sum.

The Republican proposals raise revenue, despite lowering rates, by opening a gusher of new income for the Treasury in the form of loophole elimination. For example, the Toomey plan eliminates deductions by $300 billion more than the reduction in tax rates “cost.” Result: $300 billion in new revenue.

The Simpson-Bowles commission — appointed by President Barack Obama and endorsed by Coburn — used the same formula. Its tax reform would lower tax rates at a “cost” of $1 trillion a year while eliminating loopholes that deprive the Treasury of $1.1 trillion a year. This would leave the Treasury with an excess — i.e., new tax revenue — of $100 billion a year, or $1 trillion over a decade.

Raising revenue through tax reform is better than simply raising rates, which Democrats insist upon with near religious fervor. It is more economically efficient because it eliminates credits, carve-outs and deductions that grossly misallocate capital. And it is more fair because it is the rich who can afford not only the sharp lawyers and accountants who exploit loopholes but the lobbyists who create them in the first place.

Yet the Democrats, who flatter themselves as the party of fairness, are instead obsessed with raising tax rates on the rich as a sign of civic virtue. This is perverse in three ways:

1) Raising rates gratuitously slows economic growth, i.e., expansion of the economic pie for everyone, by penalizing work and by retaining inefficiency-inducing loopholes.

2) We’re talking pennies on the dollar. Obama’s coveted Bush tax cut repeal would yield the Treasury, at the very most, $80 billion a year — offsetting 2 cents on the dollar of government spending ($3.6 trillion).

3) Hiking tax rates ignores the real drivers of debt, which, as Obama himself has acknowledged, are entitlements.

Has the president ever publicly proposed a single significant structural change in any entitlement? After Simpson-Bowles reported? No. In his February budget? No. In his April 13 budget “framework”? No. During the debt-ceiling crisis? No. During or after the supercommittee deliberations? No.

As regarding the supercommittee, Obama was AWOL — then immediately pounced on its failure by going on TV to repeat his incessantly repeated campaign theme of the do-nothing (Republican) Congress.

A swell slogan that fits nicely with the Norquist myth. Except for another inconvenient fact: It is the Republicans who passed — through the House, the only branch of government they control — a real budget that cut $5.8 trillion of spending over the next 10 years. Obama’s February budget, which would have increased spending, was laughed out of the Senate, voted down 97-0. As for the Democratic Senate, it has submitted no budget at all for 2 1/2 years.

Who, then, is do-nothing? Republicans should happily take on this absurd, and central, Democratic campaign plank. Bring Simpson-Bowles to the House floor and pass the most radical of its three deficit-reduction alternatives.

Dare the Senate Democrats to vote down the grandest of all bargains. Dare Obama to veto his own debt commission. Dare the Democrats to actually do something about debt.

Washington Post Writers Group

Charles Krauthammer is a syndicated columnist based in Washington.

letters@charleskrauthammer.com

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in Cato Institute, spending out of control, Taxes | Tagged | Comments (0)

Republicans need to tackle runaway entitlement spending

November 18, 2011 – 1:51 pm

Republicans need to tackle runaway entitlement spending

Uploaded by on Feb 15, 2011

Dan Mitchell, Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, speaks at Moving Forward on Entitlements: Practical Steps to Reform, NTUF’s entitlement reform event at CPAC, on Feb. 11, 2011.

__________________________

I am disappointed in some of the Republicans who do not want to take the bull by the horns on this issue.

GOP Needs an Entitlement Plan

by Michael D. Tanner

Michael Tanner is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and coauthor of Leviathan on the Right: How Big-Government Conservatism Brought Down the Republican Revolution.

Added to cato.org on September 28, 2011

This article appeared on National Review (Online) on September 28, 2011

There was telling moment during the CNN Republican presidential debate: Asked about the possibility of repealing George W. Bush’s Medicare prescription-drug benefit, which is adding some $17 trillion to Medicare’s unfunded liabilities, every one of the candidates pledged varying degrees of fealty to the program. No one came out for significantly cutting this vestige of Bush-style big-government conservatism, let alone repealing it. This put the current crop of Republicans to the left of John McCain, who at least campaigned in favor of means-testing the program in 2008.

The failure to stand up against one of the Bush administration’s most obvious mistakes is not just a case of hypocrisy; it is part of a disturbing trend toward ducking the tough decisions on budget cutting among the Republican aspirants. For all the sound and fury, and the charges and countercharges surrounding entitlement reform, the GOP candidates have been remarkably reluctant to put forward actual proposals.

Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, for example, has been attacking Texas governor Rick Perry over Social Security from the left, praising the program as “an essential federal program,” that has been a “success” for more than 70 years. But for all his criticism of Perry, Romney has been much vaguer about his own plans for reform. At times he has sounded almost like Obama, suggesting that there are lots of reform ideas — raising the retirement age, means testing, changing the wage-price indexing formula — that are “on the table,” but not actually endorsing any of them. One reform that Romney has taken off the table is allowing younger workers to privately invest a portion of their payroll taxes through personal accounts. In his book, No Apology, Romney endorses so-called “add on” accounts, allowing workers to save in addition to Social Security, but not carving out a portion of their current taxes. “Given the volatility of investment values that we have just experienced, I would prefer that individual accounts were added to Social Security, not diverted from it,” Romney wrote.

The Republican candidates all talk about reducing government spending. But they cannot do that unless they commit to real entitlement reform.

On Medicare, Romney has avoided specifics as well, praising Paul Ryan’s proposed reforms for example as “taking important strides in the right direction,” but not endorsing them.

For his part, Governor Perry has been forthright about the flaws of Social Security but has offered nothing in the way of a proposal for reform. As Romney has pointed out endlessly, Perry suggested in his book that Social Security might be returned to the states. But Perry has since disavowed that idea, claiming that he was only referring to state employees, some 7 million of whom are currently outside the Social Security system. Perry has also praised the privatized system for public employees in Galveston and two other Texas counties, suggesting that he might be open to some type of private investment option. But “suggesting” is as far as he goes.

On Medicare, Perry has been equally murky. At times, he has suggested that we should “transition away from” the current Medicare system, but without saying what we should transition to. His aides point out that Perry has only recently joined the race and hasn’t had time to develop specific proposals. But given his fiery talk on the issues, until he does he will seem more hat than cattle.

Rep. Michelle Bachmann has also largely tried to have it both ways on entitlement reform. She voted for the Ryan plan in Congress but promptly put out a statement distancing herself from it, claiming that her vote came with an asterisk. On Social Security, Bachmann once called the program a “monstrous fraud,” but has now joined Romney in attacking Perry’s “Ponzi scheme” description. She says that a key difference between her and Perry is that she believes Social Security “is an important safety net and that the federal government should keep its promise to seniors.” But with Social Security currently facing more than $20 trillion in unfunded liabilities, the question is how it will keep that promise.

Second-tier candidates, with less to lose, have been more willing to spell out their proposals. Businessman Herman Cain, for example, supports both the Ryan plan and Chilean-style personal accounts for Social Security. Former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum takes similar positions, as does former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson. Former Utah governor Jon Huntsman has endorsed the Ryan plan but has not spelled out his views on Social Security reform. Newt Gingrich, on the other hand, has focused on cutting “fraud, waste, and abuse,” rather than fundamentally altering the structure of those programs. Ever the iconoclast, Rep. Ron Paul opposes both the Ryan plan and personal accounts for Social Security, since he opposes a federal role in either health care or retirement on principle.

The facts are both simple and frightening. The unfunded liabilities of Social Security and Medicare run between $50 trillion and $110 trillion. Those two programs, along with Medicaid, are the primary drivers of our future indebtedness. In fact, by 2050, those three programs alone will consume 18.4 percent of GDP. If one assumes that revenues return to and stay at their traditional 18 percent of GDP, then those three programs alone will consume all federal revenues. There would not be a single dime available for any other program of government, from national defense to welfare.

The Republican candidates all talk about reducing government spending. But they cannot do that unless they commit to real entitlement reform. There’s time, and lots of debates, to hear specifics from them. But so far, the omens are not auspicious.

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in spending out of control | Tagged , , , , | Comments (0)

Dumas:Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan will not work

October 18, 2011 – 8:16 am

Senator Obama’s Social Security Tax Plan

Uploaded by on Jul 23, 2008

In addition to several other tax increases, Senator Barack Obama wants to increase the Social Security payroll tax burden by imposing the tax on income above $250,000. This would be a sharp departure from current law, which only requires that the tax be imposed on the amount of income needed to “pay for” promised benefits. But more important, at least from an economic perspective, the Senator’s initiative would increase the top tax rate on productive behavior by as much as 12 percentage points – and this would be in addition to his proposal to kill the 2003 tax rate reductions and further boost the top rate by 4.6 percentage points. This mini-documentary explains why a big tax rate increase on highly productive people would be very damaging to America’s prosperity, especially in a competitive global economy. Simply stated, pushing top tax rates in the United States to French and German levels means at least some degree of French-style and German-style economic stagnation. Visit http://www.freedomandprosperity.org for more information.

___________________________________________

Max Brantley wrote on the Arkansas Times Blog:

Dumas exposes Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan

Herman Cain is the hot Republican candidate at the moment, so Ernest Dumas’ examination of some of his ideas is timely. His easy 9-9-9 tax plan? The details aren’t so hot. More like appalling. 

He would replace all federal taxes—individual and corporate income taxes, and social security, Medicare, disability, unemployment, gasoline, cigarette and all other excise taxes—with three simple tax rates: 9 percent on personal income, 9 percent on business income and a 9 percent sales tax on all commercial activity. That sounds fair enough. There would be no exemptions and deductions. Well, only a few. Investment income—capital gains, interest and dividends, the income of the leisure class—wouldn’t be taxed at all. Your social security? Yes, tax it. As for the 9 percent business tax, it would apply only to the share of a company’s revenue that was spent on wages.It would be a mammoth tax cut for the rich and corporations and a giant tax increase for the middle class, the elderly and disabled.

_________________

I have to say that I am not able to go along with the sales tax portion myself. My views are closer to those of the Cato Institute below:

Herman Cain: How About 15-15-15?

 
PrintPresidential candidate Herman Cain has made a splash with his 9-9-9 tax reform plan. I love his 9 percent income tax, but the skunk at the tax reform picnic is his 9 percent retail sales tax. Mr. Cain is an articulate advocate of free enterprise and I wish him well in the contest, but he should ditch the sales tax.Adding a retail sales tax to the federal government’s powerful tax armada would be a terrible idea from a small-government perspective. Democrats are desperate to find ways to fund soaring entitlement costs, so it’s dangerous to give them conservative political cover to add a new federal funding source.Cain’s 9 percent business tax is also a problem. It is similar to a value-added tax (VAT) because would it disallow a business deduction for wages, which would make the base much broader than the corporate income tax base. And like a VAT, Cain’s business tax would apparently be imposed on all businesses, not just those currently paying the corporate income tax.The result would be that American businesses would be collecting a large tax on workers’ wages — but workers wouldn’t see this major government grab. One caveat is that the Cain business tax would allow a deduction for dividends paid, which would narrow the base compared to the standard VAT.

In sum, two of Cain’s three 9’s are bad ideas. His advocacy of lower marginal rates and reduced taxes on savings and investment are great, but he should drop the 9-9-9 plan.

Instead, Cain and other candidates should consider a 15-15-15 plan. At first blush, that doesn’t sound very appealing because the rates are higher than Cain’s. But the business tax base would be much smaller than Cain’s, and the plan would make existing revenue sources more visible and efficient. Here’s the 15-15-15 plan:

  • 15 Percent Payroll Tax. Cain would abolish the current 15.3 percent payroll tax that funds Social Security and Medicare. That’s odd because Cain — to his credit — is proposing a Chilean-style Social Security system with personal accounts. I’d keep the current payroll tax, but move to a Chilean-style system by allowing workers to put 6 percentage points or more of the tax into a personal account. That would feel like a tax cut for workers because they would retain ownership of the money. I would also require that all 15.3 percent of the tax be listed on employee pay stubs so that the burden is highly visible. Currently, workers only see half of the payroll tax, and thus might be unaware of the high cost of these retirement programs.
  • 15 Percent Personal Income Tax. Like Cain, I’d get rid of just about all deductions and other breaks under the income tax, except pro-savings features such as the 401(k) rules. It’s also reasonable to retain a substantial basic exemption for low-income filers, as under the Dick Armey/Steve Forbes “flat tax” plans. The Armey/Forbes plans had rates in the range of 17 to 20 percent, but they only taxed labor income at the individual level, not capital income. Technically, that is the right way to go under a flat tax, but as a bow to today’s political realities, we might want to tax wages, dividends, interest and capital gains all at 15 percent.
  • 15 Percent Corporate Income Tax. We should cut the 35 percent corporate income tax rate to 15 percent. People say we should trade a rate cut for loophole closing, but loophole closing is not worth the effort. Corporate loopholes are far smaller than loopholes in the individual code, and trying to scrap them just creates a blockade of business opposition to reform. Also, if we dropped the rate to 15 percent, the base would automatically broaden as businesses reduced their tax avoidance and evasion. Corporate profits parked offshore would flood back into the United States, and capital investment would get a huge boost. In the long-run, policymakers should consider switching to the simpler cash-flow business base under the Armey/Forbes flat tax, but if we cut the rate to 15 percent, the distortions caused by the current base would be greatly reduced anyway.

How much revenue would 15-15-15 raise? You could probably make it revenue-neutral by adjusting the basic exemption amount under the individual income tax. Dick Armey’s flat tax exemption was huge at about $35,000 for a family of four. A lower exemption amount makes more sense, but this is a variable that could be fine-tuned.

Of course, tax reform would be much easier if it created an overall tax cut. And that would be much easier to achieve if Congress cut spending. So I’d encourage Mr. Cain and the other candidates to roll up their sleeves and give us their detailed spending-cut plans. As a modest first step, how about a 9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9 plan to slice 9 percent off the budget of every federal agency?

This article appeared on The Daily Caller on October 14, 2011.

Related posts:

Social Security is a Ponzi scheme (part 13)

Saving Social Security with Personal Retirement Accounts Uploaded by afq2007 on Jan 10, 2011 There are two crises facing Social Security. First the program has a gigantic unfunded liability, largely thanks to demographics. Second, the program is a very bad deal for younger workers, making them pay record amounts of tax in exchange for comparatively meager benefits. This […]

Milton Friedman:Republicans are wrong to oppose payroll tax reduction (Part 2 of Friedman interview with John Hawkins)

 Milton Friedman and Ronald Reagan John Brummett is critical of Republicans for opposing the payroll tax reduction and I have to agree with him on this. In an interview shortly after the Bush Tax Cuts passed Milton Friedman was asked: John Hawkins:Do you think George Bush, with the economy being as it was, did the […]

John Hawkins interview with Milton Friedman (Part 1)

Uploaded by YAFTV on Aug 19, 2009 Here is the first part  of the interview: Written By : John Hawkins   Yesterday, I did a twenty minute interview by phone with Milton Friedman. Of course, Mr. Friedman has an INCREDIBLE resume. He won the 1976 Nobel Memorial Prize for economic science, won the “Presidential Medal of […]

Social Security is a Ponzi scheme (Part 12)

U.S. Senator Rand Paul Speaks at Cato University 2011 Uploaded by catoinstitutevideo on Sep 6, 2011 http://www.cato.org/multimedia/subscribe.php U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) spoke at this year’s Cato University on everything from national healthcare and the commerce clause to spending cuts and social security reform. Cato University is the Cato Institute’s premier educational event of the […]

Social Security is a Ponzi scheme (Part 11)

Dan Mitchell on Social Security Uploaded by catoinstitutevideo on Aug 19, 2010 Discussing the troubles facing social security, with Mark Walsh, Left Jab host and Dan Mitchell, Cato Institute. Social Security is a Ponzi scheme (Part 4) Governor Rick Perry got in trouble for calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme and I totally agree with […]

Milton Friedman discusses Reagan and Reagan discusses Friedman

Uploaded by YAFTV on Aug 19, 2009 Nobel Laureate Dr. Milton Friedman discusses the principles of Ronald Reagan during this talk for students at Young America’s Foundation’s 25th annual National Conservative Student Conference MILTON FRIEDMAN ON RONALD REAGAN In Friday’s WSJ, Milton Friedman reflectedon Ronald Reagan’s legacy. (The link should work for a few more […]

Social Security is a Ponzi scheme (Part 10)

Milton Friedman – The Social Security Myth Uploaded by LibertyPen on Mar 5, 2010 Using Social Security as his prime example, Professor Friedman explodes the myth that the major expansions in government resulted from popular demand. In a speech delivered more than 30 years ago, he directly relates this dynamic to today’s health care debate. […]

 

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in Cato Institute, President Obama | Comments (0)

Social Security is a Ponzi scheme (part 13)

October 18, 2011 – 12:59 am

Saving Social Security with Personal Retirement Accounts

Uploaded by  on Jan 10, 2011

There are two crises facing Social Security. First the program has a gigantic unfunded liability, largely thanks to demographics. Second, the program is a very bad deal for younger workers, making them pay record amounts of tax in exchange for comparatively meager benefits. This video explains how personal accounts can solve both problems, and also notes that nations as varied as Australia, Chile, Sweden, and Hong Kong have implemented this pro-growth reform. http://www.freedomandprosperity.org

Social Security is a Ponzi scheme (Part 2)

Governor Rick Perry got in trouble for calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme and I totally agree with that. This is a series of articles that look at this issue.

Social Security Demagoguery from Mitt Romney and Michele Bachmann: Economically Wrong, Politically Wrong

Posted by Daniel J. Mitchell

Governor Rick Perry of Texas is being attacked by two rivals in the GOP presidential race. His sin, if you can believe it, is that he told the truth (as acknowledged by everyone from Paul Krugman to Milton Friedman) about Social Security being a Ponzi scheme.

Here’s an excerpt from Philip Klein’s column in the Examiner, looking at how Mitt Romney is criticizing Perry.

Mitt Romney doubled down on his attack against Texas Gov. Rick Perry this afternoon, warning in an interview with Sean Hannity that his critique of Social Security amounted to “terrible politics” that would cost Republicans the election. Romney’s decision to pile on suggests that he’s willing to play the “granny card” against Perry if it will help him get elected, a tactic more becoming of the likes of DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz than a potential Republican nominee.

And here’s a Byron York column from the Examiner looking at how Michele Bachmann is taking the same approach.

…another Republican rival, Michele Bachmann, is preparing to hit Perry on the same issue. “Bernie Madoff deals with Ponzi schemes, not the grandparents of America,” says a Bachmann adviser.  “Clearly she feels differently about the value of Social Security than Gov. Perry does.  She believes Social Security needs to be saved, that it’s an important safety net for Americans who have paid into it all their lives.” … “She strongly disagrees with his position on that…”

Shame on Romney and Bachmann. With an inflation-adjusted long-run shortfall of about $28 trillion, Social Security is a Ponzi scheme on steroids.

But as I explain in this video, that’s just part of the problem. The program also is a terrible deal for workers, particularly young people and minorities.

Here’s what’s so frustrating. Romney and Bachmann almost certainly understand that Social Security is actuarially bankrupt. And they probably realize that personal retirement accounts are the only long-run answer.

But they’re letting political ambition lure them into saying things that they know are not true. Why? Because they think Perry will lose votes and they can improve their respective chances of getting the GOP nomination.

Sounds like a smart approach, assuming truth and morality don’t matter.

But here’s what’s so ironic. The Romney and Bachmann strategy is only astute if Social Security is sacrosanct and personal accounts are political poison.

But as I noted last year, the American public supports personal accounts by a hefty margin. And former President Bush won two elections while supporting Social Security reform. And election-day polls confirmed that voters supported personal accounts.

I’m not a political scientist, so maybe something has changed, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Perry benefited from the left-wing demagoguery being utilized by Romney and Bachmann.

P.S. This does not mean Perry has the right answer. As far as I know, he hasn’t endorsed personal accounts. But at least he’s telling the truth about Social Security being unsustainable.

By Everette Hatcher III | Comments (0)

Social Security is a Ponzi scheme (Part 12)

October 17, 2011 – 12:57 am

U.S. Senator Rand Paul Speaks at Cato University 2011

Uploaded by on Sep 6, 2011

http://www.cato.org/multimedia/subscribe.php

U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) spoke at this year’s Cato University on everything from national healthcare and the commerce clause to spending cuts and social security reform.

Cato University is the Cato Institute’s premier educational event of the year. Participants are immersed in economic, philosophical, and historical principles — and into the foundations of libertarianism and individual liberty.

Video produced by Evan Banks and Austin Bragg.

Uploaded by on Jan 8, 2009

Professor Williams explains what’s ahead for Social Security

_________________________________

Social Security is a Ponzi scheme (Part 3)

Governor Rick Perry got in trouble for calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme and I totally agree with that. This is a series of articles that look at this issue.

Ernie the Electrician Understands Social Security

by William Shipman

This article appeared on Daily Caller on April 22, 2011.

Ernie was pretty certain he had made the right decision after hearing the senators propose that the Social Security retirement age should be increased to age 70. At first glance it seemed to make sense. People are living longer so their benefits should start a little later. And this would help the system’s finances. But looking back at his own career as a self-employed electrician, he began to question if it actually did make sense. He also wondered whether the senators knew what he knew. If they didn’t, they should. If they did, why did they make such a proposal? Here’s what he thought they should know.

Ernie started working in 1966 at age 21. He made $6,900 his first year, and just average wages thereafter. But he was frugal, for his parents taught him to save no matter what. So he saved every year the same amount he paid in Social Security taxes that he assumed were set aside for his retirement. In the first year it wasn’t much, just $360.

He wasn’t a sophisticated investor, so he took what he thought was good advice, and invested in broad indexes of stocks and bonds with a 70/30 percent mix. He didn’t day trade, pick stocks, or try to time the market. He didn’t know anything about that. The only change he ever made was at age 56 when he restructured the portfolio to a more conservative 50/50 stock/bond allocation. He retired at the end of last year, at age 66, the age at which he could receive full Social Security benefits.

William G. Shipman is chairman of CarriageOaks Partners, LLC and co-chairman of the Cato Institute Project on Social Security Choice.

More by William G. Shipman

When he applied for his benefits in 2010, he was advised by the Social Security Administration that his first monthly check would be $1,664, and he would receive it in mid-January 2011. He was also told that if he chose Medicare Part B, the premium would be deducted from his benefit check. He earned $48,000 in 2010 so his first year’s benefit of $19,968 totaled about 41 percent of his last year’s pay check.

Ernie wanted to know how much he could withdraw from his portfolio to supplement his benefits. Finance not being his strong point, he sought help. He was advised to re-structure the portfolio to earn a more conservative 4.5 percent return. He was also told that a man of his age had a life expectancy of about another 18 years, but that he shouldn’t take that as the number of years he would live. It was just an average. He should be conservative, and assume he’d live another 25 years to age 91. After he agreed to these points, his advisor told him how much he could withdraw.

Ernie was shocked. Even after including the stock market crash of 2008, he could take out $37,000 in 2011, and increase it every year for 25 years by 3.0 percent, the historical inflation rate. Or he could buy an annuity providing a comparable benefit. Of course he could take out less, so as to leave some assets for his children. Or he may want to hedge whether he’ll live longer than 91.

Ernie was confused. He couldn’t figure out why saving and investing the same amount he paid the government resulted in almost double the benefit.

When he shared all of this with his children, they were angry that they were forced to pay the government their savings when they likely could earn more on their own. Not only that, if the senators’ proposal became law, they wouldn’t even get their full Social Security benefits until they were 70, four years later then their father. The senators were proposing to cut their already-low projected benefits.

When they asked the financial advisor for his view, he spoke more broadly. He said that our government has grown way beyond the vision of our founding fathers. He said that Washington politicians from both parties, and bureaucrats, have for decades successfully decreased our freedom and liberties as they have regulated more and more of our lives, including our retirement. Without some spark, he didn’t think it would change. He said the senators’ proposal was typical; don’t let folks keep more of the fruits of their labor, rather tax them, and then provide lower benefits, all in the name of protecting them, and saving a government program.

Ernie was even more concerned about his kids’ future. They would need his help if the government kept on this path. To him, the senators’ proposal was just another bit of evidence that it probably would. So he decided to take out a lot less than $37,000, and leave the rest to his children. And though they didn’t know it, the senators helped him make that decision.

By Everette Hatcher III | Comments (0)

Social Security is a Ponzi scheme (Part 11)

October 14, 2011 – 12:56 am

Dan Mitchell on Social Security

Uploaded by on Aug 19, 2010

Discussing the troubles facing social security, with Mark Walsh, Left Jab host and Dan Mitchell, Cato Institute.

Social Security is a Ponzi scheme (Part 4)

Governor Rick Perry got in trouble for calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme and I totally agree with that. This is a series of articles that look at this issue.

Fixing Social Security

by Michael D. Tanner

This article appeared on National Review (Online) on August 18, 2010.

So, President Obama believes that Republican leaders are “pushing to make privatizing Social Security a key part of their legislative agenda if they win a majority in Congress this fall.”

To which one responds, “If only!”

There is no doubt that Social Security desperately needs reform. Social Security is already running a temporary deficit, and that deficit will turn permanent in just five years. In theory, the Social Security Trust Fund will pay benefits until 2037. That’s not much comfort to today’s 35-year-olds, who will face a 27 percent cut in benefits unless the program is reformed before they retire. But even that figure is misleading, because the trust fund contains no actual assets. The government bonds it holds are simply IOUs, a measure of how much money the government owes the system. It says nothing about where the government will get the $2.6 trillion to pay off those IOUs.

Even if Congress can find a way to redeem the bonds, the trust-fund surplus will be completely exhausted by 2037. At that point, Social Security will have to rely solely on revenue from the payroll tax — and that won’t be sufficient to pay all the promised benefits. Overall, the amount the system has promised beyond what it can actually pay now totals $18.7 trillion.

Moreover, Social Security taxes are already so high, relative to benefits, that Social Security has simply become a bad deal for younger workers, providing a below-market rate of return. In fact, many young workers will end up paying more in taxes than they receive in benefits. And most important, workers have no ownership of their benefits. This means that they are left totally dependent on the goodwill of 535 politicians to determine what they’ll receive in retirement.

Benefits are not inheritable, and the program is a barrier to wealth accumulation. Lower-income families, African-Americans, and working women suffer disproportionately.

But Republican leaders, battered by the failure of President Bush’s reform initiative and years of Democratic demagoguery, show no signs of venturing back into this issue. In fact, the only senior Republican willing to support personal accounts these days appears to be Rep. Paul Ryan, who has included in his “roadmap” a plan to allow younger workers the option of investing slightly less than half of their Social Security taxes. However, it is telling that Ryan’s roadmap has just 13 co-sponsors, none of whom are among the Republican leadership.

Given their large lead in current polls, it is perhaps understandable that Republicans don’t want to risk offending voters, particularly seniors, by wading back into the Social Security thicket. But they are making a mistake.

From a purely political standpoint, if Republicans think that remaining silent on the issue will protect them from Democratic attacks, they are the stupid party indeed. The president’s comments should serve clear notice that Democrats are not going to let a simple thing like Republicans’ actual position to get in the way of a good political weapon. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has run television ads attacking his opponent, Sharron Angle, for wanting “to wipe the program out,” even though she’s made clear she wants to keep it. In Kentucky, Republican senatorial candidate Rand Paul is being criticized for remarks he made in favor of Social Security privatization — in 1998. There isn’t any escape.

Even worse, as a matter of policy, by taking personal accounts off the table, Republicans may be boxing themselves into a very bad corner. There are, after all, only three options for Social Security reform: raise taxes, cut benefits, or switch to personal accounts. While benefit cuts are defensible economically, they are not likely to prove any more politically popular than personal accounts, probably less so. Democrats are already organizing to fight any reductions. And, if Republican opposition to the Medicare cuts under Obamacare is any indication, no one should expect an overabundance of courage in fighting to cut Social Security benefits.

Therefore, if Republicans are not willing to embrace personal accounts, they will be left with … tax hikes, which has been the Democrats’ goal all along.

One reason the Democrats have been so successful in expanding the government year after year is that they have the courage of their convictions. They lose on an issue time after time, but they keep coming back until they win. Take national health care: After Hillarycare went down to defeat in 1993, the Left didn’t give up. And today we have Obamacare. Republicans lost on Social Security and curled up into a fetal position, begging for mercy.

Factcheck.org rates the president’s statement that Republicans want to privatize Social Security as “mostly false.” Before too long, we may come to wish that this time he had been telling the truth.

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in President Obama | Comments (0)