In the New York Times on Tuesday, David Brooks attributed Rick Santorum's last-minute surge in the polls to the appeal of his family values platform with working-class whites. If Brooks is right, then those same voters should take a second look at Santorum's position on Social Security, a program that represents the best of American family values.
Brooks argues that Santorum's blue-collar background and his emphasis on "family and social solidarity," rather than the Ayn Rand-style individualism of the GOP establishment, make him a good match for high school-educated whites. These working-class whites, Brooks writes, "sense that the nation has gone astray," based on their belief that among other things "marriage is in crisis," and America's "work ethic is eroding."
Brooks chooses to accept Santorum's family values bona fides uncritically. But working-class supporters of Rick Santorum should know the truth.
If Santorum were really such a pro-family candidate, he would be a strident defender of Social Security, which helps keep families strong and encourages hard work. Santorum's record shows that he is anything but.
As the Strengthen Social Security Campaign's guide to the Republican candidates reveals, Santorum has supported privatizing Social Security. Here's what he said in 2005, at the height of President Bush's drive to privatize the program:
Personal retirement accounts provide individuals--not the government--with control and ownership. And they hold the promise of a greater return for future generations than what they are promised by today's Social Security system. (The Hill, March 1, 2005)
Contrary to what Santorum thinks, Social Security--in its current form--is the ultimate family program. Social Security helps maintain the bond between generations of family members. Benefits often prevent adults caring for aging parents from experiencing undue financial strain. Social Security is the majority of income or more for more than two-thirds of senior households. Even minor reductions in benefits could force these seniors to rely on their children more, who are often in their peaking earning years and struggling to support children of their own.
Social Security Survivors' Insurance also helps keep family's finances in order when the worst occurs unexpectedly. If a worker with children under age 16 dies unexpectedly, Social Security provides benefits equivalent to 75 percent of what the worker would have received in retirement to the spouse and children of that worker until the children are 18.
In fact, Social Security even reinforces the nation's "eroding work ethic" that Brooks says working-class GOPers are so concerned about. You are only eligible for Social Security benefits if you have worked ten years and contributed to the program with payroll taxes. This provides an incentive to lower-income people to work by guaranteeing them retirement income no matter how low-paying their job. Social Security even rewards achievement, providing workers with larger benefits the more they have earned and contributed over their working years.
Skeptics might say: Sure Social Security is a family program, but do high school-educated Republicans know that? Don't they scorn Social Security as much as any other government program?
No. Poll after poll shows that working-class Republicans are just as likely to support Social Security and oppose benefit cuts as Democrats. According to a July Pew poll, 53 percent of Republicans earning $30-$74,999 called keeping Social Security and Medicare benefits where they are a higher priority than reducing the budget deficit; 62 percent of Republicans making less than $30,000 said the same.
In fact, working-class voters overall (partisan breakdown not available), are more likely to oppose measures like raising the retirement age to 69. In a Lake Research Partners poll done on election eve 2010, 71 percent of non-college men and 76 percent of non-college women were opposed to raising the retirement age to 69--more than any other groups. This might be because nearly 6 out of 10 high school-educated workers aged 58 or older work in physically demanding jobs or dangerous working conditions, according to a 2010 study by the Center for Economic Policy and Research.
Santorum, for his part, has supported raising the retirement age to 70 since 1994. "It is ridiculous that we have a retirement age in this country at age 65 today...Push it back to at least age 70," he said. "I'd go even farther if I could, but I don't think I could pass it."
Follow Daniel Marans on Twitter: www.twitter.com/danielmarans
Dan Bimrose: The Fallacy in Santorum's "Family" Argument
The pensions of Congressmen should be tied to the value of the average pension for the middle 50% of their district (state for Senators). Yes, including those who have no pensions waiting.
Oh, and having been elected to Congress, their former financial life should be turned over to a blind trust, and they should have to actually *live* off the salary they are paid. Election funds should be off-limits to them after an election.
Only by tying the welfare of the Congressmen to the welfare of their district, state, and people will their loyalties begin to turn toward the people.
I know, I know. But I can dream, can't I?
Perhaps we can add that when they leave office they should find their own healthcare insurance and pay for it themselves. None of this blue blanket stuff that they receive.
In the 90s, he voted to support the Lautenberg Gun Ban, which stripped law-abiding gun owners of their Second Amendment rights for life, simply because they spanked their children or did nothing more than grab a spouses wrist.
He voted for a bill in 1999 disguised as an attempt to increase penalties on drug traffickers with guns… but it also included a provision to require federal background checks at gun shows.
And then he voted with gun-controlling Democrats Dianne Fienstein and Frank Lautenberg to mandate locks on handguns in 2005.
But worst of all, Rick Santorum has a storied history of bailing out anti-gun Republicans facing reelection.
Rick Santorum came to anti-gun Arlen Specter’s defense in 2004 when he was down in the polls against pro-gun Republican Pat Toomey. Specter won and continued to push for gun control during his years in the Senate.
He also supported and openly campaigned for anti-gun New Jersey governor, Christine Todd Whitman.
The evidence is clear. Not only is Rick Santorum refusing to reveal where he stands on important Second Amendment issues, he has a long record of supporting anti-gun legislation and politicians. http://www.nationalgunrights.org/rick-santorums-anti-gun-history/
Rick Santorum named MOST CORRUPT SENATOR ….go look it up!
http://www.citizensforethics.org/index.php/press/entry/crew-releases-second-annual-most-corrupt-members-of-congress-report
That’s the reason he lost his seat! And the MSM trying to upsell this corruption to the American public. Disgraceful!
It needs to be repaid and put in a Lockbox per Clinton's suggestion.
- SS is now taking less FICA revenue than it is paying out....7 years earlier than originally predicted.
- FICA payments go into the general treasury accounts - there has never been and never will be a "lock box". The trust fund is an accounting fiction.
- The above referenced "trust fund" Is set to run out in 2024 instead of 2037.
Read this article it gives the true facts about SS and why our misconceptions about the program are preventing true reform.
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/the-myth-of-the-social-security-trust-fund/
We ARE the government........individal retirement accounts are certainly a social construct, but not a secure one.....and btw.......it's not just about retirement.....
And those who get their money stolen in the market are simply told, "You didn't know enough to play the game. You shouldn't have played. Too bad, so sad, boo hoo but no retirement for you. "
Yes, that Great Unseen Hand of the Market (usually the super rich) can move markets in such a way as to shake value from your investments into their pockets. And they do it, too.
Without strict rules on these financial playmasters and severe penalties for misbehavior in even the smallest part, they will continue to pillage and plunder. They are far worse than government bureaucracy.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3260&emailView=1
And here's some recipes on how to cook and eat crow:
http://www.thecrowroost.com/RECIPES.htm
Yup. That's exactly what happened to us. It changed everything. It also affected our ability to sell our house for what it was supposedly worth. Companies oozed out of providing pensions for all but their most senior executives (Romney's making ? a year from Bain for doing nothing since he left?) and lobbied/bought enough members of Congress, so that we could 'all become investors in our own future.' Sounded good, until it didn't.
I certainly think that income to SS should not be capped, but benefits should be. I believe that would provide solvency and security, as well as a social safety net.