« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Social Security is the Poison Pill of the Debt Commission’s Proposal

If the only legislative option is to vote on the entire report from the Debt Commission, then the changes in Social Security should serve as a poison pill to prevent any Republican from supporting it. While there are definitely some good proposals in the report that call for spending cuts, anyone who calls themselves a conservative cannot support the commission’s report as a package deal.  It is therefore disappointing to hear that Senators Coburn and Crapo plan to vote for the report unconditionally.

The Hill is reporting that these Senators believe that if something is not done soon we are headed for a fiscal ruin.  Therefore, they will vote for any proposal, irrespective of how flawed it is.  Coburn declared at a press conference,” I am scared to death of the potential that could unwind this country far greater than anything we’ve seen before.”

Senator Coburn is correct in asserting that if we don’t cut the spending then we will face peril.  However, we need to understand that this is not about balancing a budget, it is about limiting government.  If our only option of immediate reform is to vote for modest spending cuts in conjunction with dramatic tax hikes, entrenchment of Obama Care, and the perpetuation of the SS ponzi scheme, then it is better that we wait two months so we can propose drastic limits in government spending without any tax increases.


Paul Ryan has already expressed his concern about the provisions in the report that will cement Obama Care and even impose taxes on employer health plans.  As Ryan explains to The Hill:

“The plan accelerates and entrenches ObamaCare,” Ryan said. By taxing employer health plans but leaving the rest of the healthcare reform law in place, the plan presented by the chairmen of the deficit commission would push too many people into healthcare exchanges, which Ryan said would balloon subsidies paid by the government.”

What concerns me is that there is not enough outrage from conservatives about the commission’s plans for Social Security.  The commission calls for reform of Social Security by implementing any one, or mix of the following changes; cutting benefits, raising payroll taxes, raising the exemption limit, means testing benefits, and most egregiously raising the retirement age.  Unfortunately, some conservatives are applauding this move as a much needed cut in entitlement spending.  However, they would be wise to note that this “entitlement” is quite different from most others in that we are forced into it!

Let’s get this straight.  The government runs a ponzi scheme in which they steal up to to 14% (including the employer’s share) of everyone’s hard earned money for a supposed retirement plan.  Then, they use current workers to pay off those who are retired, while making extra money from eating the contributions of those who die before they can receive it.  Finally, when the program goes bust and they are caught, instead of going to prison like Bernie Madoff, they get to force us to contribute more!  Worse yet, they continuously raise the age in which we can receive our own money!  If this is not tyranny, slaving until you are 70 years old for the government, I don’t know what is.  How can anyone who calls themselves a conservative even think of supporting this?

I have no problem with cutting down on SS benefits and making it more sustainable for those who choose to participate.  But how can we compel every American to contribute a large percentage of their income to a plan that will be means tested and be administered at the mercy of corrupt politicians?  This is purely unconstitutional and should be the next civil rights issue for young voters.  The bottom line is that none of these changes can be fairly implemented without offering younger voters a way out of this ponzi scheme.

We need to pressure our elected Republicans and fellow conservatives not let the enticement of minuscule budget cuts buy their vote for tax hikes, expansion of government, and entrenchment of Social Security as a permanent form of involuntary servitude.

Cross-posted to Red Meat Conservative

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • Scope

    about the SS plans proposed. Paul Ryan himself has SS entitlement reform in his own Roadmap project. SS must be reformed, but, you are correct that the government can’t force you to pay into something, and, then when you are close to collecting on that promise, just say sorry. The young people must be allowed to opt out, and opt into something that would benefit them far more than the SS payments for their retirement years from the government. I can see the youth being all for phasing out SS as it is currently handled, and, I can see the seniors, or soon to be seniors screaming from the rooftops. Any entitlement reform is going to be like trying to ski uphill for either party, but, if we don’t want to become Greece or Ireland, it must be tackled in the most fair manner to all as possible.

  • Scope

    they are very timely and necessary.

    • http://redmeatconservative.blogspot.com/ dhorowitz3

      for your feedback. This SS business really heats me up. As a young worker, I can’t understand how it is fair, moral, and constitutional to force me into a system that was raided by corrupt politicians and is now demanding that we support it indefinitely.

      Now, I can basically look forward to contributing more to the system the more money I make, only to receive at at age 75 if at all.

      • Scope

        That’s why I said that young workers should be all in favor of some sort of opt out phasing. Can you imagine how far all those fed TARP funds would have gone in helping to speed an opt out, rather than traveling around the world, and never buying the first toxic mortgage?

        I would be in support of digging old FDR up, and placing his body in the cell next to Madoff for as many years as he is going to be there.

  • Flagstaff

    has reduced me to incoherent babbling.

    I printed it out last night and tried to go through it making notes to develop a comprehensive critique of the thing. I am so enraged by its tone of “we know best” that I can’t stand to read it. Maybe that’s what they want. It’s only 54 pages and unreadable. No wonder the ObamaCare law has yet to be fully read by any human being. Alan Simpson is just a folksy, down-home charter member of the ruling class, and he enjoys every minute of it.

    As near as I can tell, in addition to the flaws you point out, there is no mention of rescinding Congressional pensions anywhere in the thing. And the idea of “freezing” federal salaries? How about rolling them back a few years?

    Why was a commission necessary to produce that thing? Isn’t that exactly what we elect Congress to do?

    Conservatives, do it the easy way. What is our projected revenue for this year? Find the most recent budget the matches that number, and adopt that. Lay off as many federal workers or reduce salaries as necessary to make it work.

    The idea of a “deficit reduction panel” completely misses the point and ignores reality. No matter what happens, Congress will always pander to a part of the public by given Other People’s Money away, and they’ll always spend more than they expect to take in via tax revenues. The only answer that really works is to keep government revenues small enough that the resulting debt remains manageable. And that is less than 21% of GDP.

    • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

      http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/254086/can-republicans-talk-thomas-sowell

      BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

      RUSH: All right, Alan Simpson Babe and Irksome Bowles are soon to be chairing the official press conference announcing the actual aspects of their proposal. There’s also big news today about the Obama meeting with the Republicans on tax cuts. I just want to ask you a question. When was the last time that Obama called for a meeting with Republicans, “We gotta talk this out amongst ourselves, we gotta come to some common ground,” do you remember when it was? That would be the health care summit in which Eric Cantor and a number of other Republicans were up there with Obama, the Democrats, and he listened and rejected all of it. And every time Eric Cantor or Mike Pence or anybody made a brilliant point about something, Paul Ryan, Obama stared at them, angrier than he’s ever gotten at Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks sissy who released all the data. So there’s nothing that’s gonna come of this. We all know what Obama wants. Obama does not want any extension of these tax cuts.

      By the way, rich has been dropped. It’s now millionaires and billionaires. That’s the terminology. During the health care summit I was alone. I told the Republicans, “Don’t even go. Don’t even waste your time showing up. All you’re going to do is add weight to Obama and allow him to say at the end of this whole thing that he is all for bipartisanship, that the people got together and so forth.” The health care summit ended with Obama saying that’s what elections are for, I won; you lost. I’m gonna listen to what you say here, but I’m not gonna really hear it. It’s gonna be the same thing here on taxes. These clowns know they lost the election, but they’re trying to turn it around and have the opposite impression created. Thomas Sowell has a column on that today, which I’ll get to here in short order.

      BREAK TRANSCRIPT

      RUSH: Thomas Sowell: “Can Republicans Talk?” He’s worried that we might lose this tax extension debate because there aren’t any Republicans who can articulate properly here to persuade people what this is all about. It’s the argument about tax cuts raising revenue. And what Sowell wants is some Republican to say, “Look, tax cuts for the rich, tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires raises money,” which it does. Tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires and the rich raises money and will create jobs. He wants a Republican in Washington, in this debate, to say that. Now, admittedly, there are gonna be some Republicans gun-shy about defending the rich and defending the super rich. I, of course, do not have that problem. But then, the question is, does what happen on this show, will it influence the outcome of what happens in this debate in Congress and Washington? It might, but that’s something we can’t count on.

      So ten words or less, how to articulate what really is going on. And we’ve done this for 23 years. For example, we’ve made the point this is not even about tax cuts. Nobody’s taxes are gonna be cut here if the current tax rates are extended. There are no tax cuts being discussed. The Democrats in the media want you to think that what’s on the table is tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. Nobody’s taxes will be cut, regardless what happens here. Nobody’s even suggesting tax cuts. Sowell is worried that Republicans don’t even have the ability to articulate that. Here, let me give you a couple of excerpts from his piece, at the end of it.

      He goes through and lists the facts as I have just done here. And he says: “Most important of all, these tax-rate reductions spurred economic activity, which we definitely need today. These are the facts. But facts do not ‘speak for themselves.’ In terms of facts, the Republicans have the stronger case. But that doesn?t matter, unless they make the case, which they show little sign of doing. Democrats already understand the need for articulation. Robert Reich is only one of many articulate Democratic spokesmen. But where are the articulate Republicans? Do they even understand how crucial articulation is? The outcome of this lame-duck session of Congress may answer that question.”

      Now, so far, not one Republican is off the reservation on this. The Democrats wanted tax increases during all this, and no Republican’s gone along with that. I would also add that if a Republican does come along and properly articulate this, will we ever hear about it? There is that component here. Will the Drive-Bys ever report it? The Drive-Bys are totally interested in disinformation and presenting the conventional wisdom or the cliche on this, that this is all about tax cuts, additional tax cuts for the rich, which during an economy like ours is only gonna benefit the rich, instead of saying millionaires and billionaires are also known as the people who save and create jobs. It’s not hard to say, but there is some fear. Look, decades of pounding by the media, we know this is what happens to Washington Republicans, we know this is what happens. They get pounded and pounded and pounded, lied about, misrepresented, false associations are made, and they become queasy about speaking up. And Sowell’s frustration is, for God’s sake, who just won the election, who just won a huge landslide? Why are they afraid to show up and speak up? And I understand, everybody has that frustration. I have it less than others because I have the ability to speak up. You know, I have this — the Golden EIB Microphone — and I get to satisfy my frustrations.

      But people who don’t have a microphone are looking for others who do to speak for them, and in elected politics, that’s elected officeholders like Republicans, and if they don’t speak up on this, and people want whatever will bring this economy around. People want whatever will create jobs. People are not interested here in what’s gonna best benefit Democrats or best benefit Republicans. They want an economy rebounding.

      • Flagstaff

        He said much more succinctly what I have been writing her for about a year–

        “But where are the articulate Republicans? Do they even understand how crucial articulation is?”–Thomas Sowell, 11/30/2010

        “[Republicans] must be able to speak articulately, compellingly, and convincingly about… [policies]. It does us no good whatsoever if the message is garbled or ignored because the delivery is too distracting or too weak to be accepted.”–Flagstaff, 12/16/2009

        In fact, on the subject of the next Presidential campaign, you can just go down the list of Republican hopefuls and tick off several who fail the test of “articulation.” And I’ll add “credibility,” but that’s another subject, and if I throw in “commanding presence” I’m beating a dead horse.

        But on today’s issue, Sowell nails it. Who speaks for the Republicans? The Congressional Republicans would do better if they just told their questioners, “Ask Rush about that.” Barring that, they need to take some lessons from Sowell and become experts on their subject so they can at least understand what they’re mumbling about.

        Here

        http://www.diigo.com/annotated/238c8e88dfd24a8030612cb86794a640

        is an interesting article from WSJ.com that claims

        “Over the past six decades, tax revenues as a percentage of GDP have averaged just under 19% regardless of the top marginal personal income tax rate. The top marginal rate has been as high as 92% (1952-53) and as low as 28% (1988-90). This observation was first reported in an op-ed I wrote for this newspaper in March 1993. A wit later dubbed this “Hauser’s Law.”

        Over this period there have been more than 30 major changes in the tax code including personal income tax rates, corporate tax rates, capital gains taxes, dividend taxes, investment tax credits, depreciation schedules, Social Security taxes, and the number of tax brackets among others. Yet during this period, federal government tax collections as a share of GDP have moved within a narrow band of just under 19% of GDP. ”

        This tells me that we are definitely to the right of the Laffer curve. Our leaders should be ARTICULATING the fact that an increase on tax rates will REDUCE tax revenues. Not that I want tax revenues to increase, but that would help us while we reduce spending.

        Suggestion: Eliminate federal funding of any entity that has the word “Endowment” in its name.

        • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine