You'd think Social Security would top the list of subjects for a presidential debate in Florida. How many questions did Wolf Blitzer ask about it during Thursday night's Republican debate in Jacksonville?
Answer: None. The words "Social Security" never passed his lips.
It was almost as if there were a "gentlemen's agreement" among the five people on the stage. And we use that phrase advisedly, since Blitzer sealed the boy's club atmosphere by asking each of the candidates why his wife would make the best first lady.
The candidates did mention Social Security a couple of times, but only in passing and only in the most misleading ways possible. It's too bad there wasn't, oh, a journalist nearby -- one who was inclined to ask follow-up questions.
What was said that night? Rick Santorum and Ron Paul both attacked Newt Gingrich from the right on Social Security. Santorum suggested that the Speaker's proposals, which would cut benefits, were too expensive and would "create a brand new Social Security entitlement."
Not true.
Ron Paul said that Gingrich's claim to have helped cut the federal deficit was false -- which is true. But then he said that the reason it's untrue is because Gingrich "doesn't count the money he takes out of Social Security" -- which is false!
Confused yet? Stick around. The layers of artificial reality became as mind-bending as a Philip K. Dick novel when Gingrich responded.
Gingrich attacked Obama from the left on Social Security:
I propose that we take Social Security off budget so no president can ever again get threaten, as Obama did in August, that he would not send the check out, and you could set Social Security back up as a free-standing trust fund. It does have enough money and you could in fact pay the checks without regard to politics in Washington.
Those two sentences include five statements. Let's take a look:
President Obama could have prevented these kinds of disingenuous attacks a lot more effectively if he had not done things like appoint two avowedly anti-Social Security figures to lead his "Deficit Commission," repeatedly offered to cut Social Security, and then used the payroll tax that funds Social Security for a "middle-class tax break" that also benefits millionaires.
He even repeated the offer to cut Social Security and Medicare in last week's "Occupy-themed" State of the Union message! Oy. Still, any one of the candidates onstage last Thursday would do even more to cut the program needlessly -- far more.
So why wasn't it a topic that Blitzer and CNN considered important enough to discuss? When Santorum first mentioned Social Security, Blitzer said, "We're going to get to that in a moment." Iit sounded like the "it" in question was Social Security, but Blitzer never mentioned it again.
I can certainly understand why the candidates didn't want the subject raised. More than three and a half million Republican voters rely on Social Security, including seniors, disabled people, and surviving spouses. In fact, the candidates in Tuesday's primary would be crazy not to hide their opinions on the topic:
Mitt Romney's been pushing to privatize Social Security for years. After the financial crisis of 2008, Americans understand how risky it would be to place their financial security in the hands of greedy, reckless, and irresponsible financiers -- or as Mitt probably thinks of them, "the fellas."
Ron Paul says Social Security is "unconstitutional."
All of the candidates would raise the retirement age -- except Paul, who presumably would end Social Security altogether.
With positions like these, who wouldn't want to keep the Sunshine State in the dark? An AARP survey showed that likely Republican voters in Florida oppose Social Security cuts by more than two to one. As the Christian Science Monitor reports, a slight majority would favor raising the retirement age, but more Republicans favor the solution that's typically called "progressive" -- lifting or raising the cap on payroll taxes so that higher income levels are subject to the tax. All four Republican candidates strongly oppose this idea, which is their voters' preferred option.
"We're afraid that (Social Security's) going to be cut," said one voter, "or that we're going to lose what we put into it." Those are precisely the kinds of options the candidates in Tuesday's primary are offering. No wonder they're zipping their lips on the subject.
Some voters noticed the omission. As USA Today reported on the morning before the debate, "people are frustrated that the Republican presidential candidates have largely avoided the issues of Medicare and Social Security." You'd think that would have made the subject even more important for CNN to raise. A news organization's job is to ask candidates the questions they don't want asked. Surely they could have squeezed one in, perhaps after asking the First Lady question? (Gingrich graciously said they'd all be wonderful at the job.)
Remember the movie Don't Tell Mom the Babysitter's Dead? This week's Florida primary should be renamed Don't Tell Grandma Social Security Will Be Dead -- and Medicare Too -- If We're Elected. Mitt Romney's already on record as saying income inequality shouldn't be discussed openly. Was there some sort of "gentleman's agreement" to ignore Social Security too?
UPDATE: Ron Paul supporters note that I've left out other statements he's made about Social Security, especially that he would allow people under 25 to "opt out." Paul's website fails to provide a position statement on Social Security. It does mention - in passing - that he "believes younger American citizens should be permitted to opt-out of Medicare and Social Security." That statement's a little hard to find, since it appears on a page entitled "Ron Paul is the Only Candidate Who Will Cut Spending."
So we know that Ron Paul a) believes Social Security is unconstitutional, b) supports an unpopular 'opt-out' plan that would be an economic disaster, and c) wants to cut spending on it. That is, however, something of an incoherent position: How can you offer citizens the option of continuing to participate in an unconstitutional program?
Paul, like the other candidates, has a very unpopular set of proposals regarding Social Security. In fairness to him, however, I didn't describe it fully. (In my defense, I did so because it's self-contradictory and confusing.) Unlike the others, however, it's very possible that Paul wouldn't be coy about telling voters what he thinks. Unfortunately nobody asked him.
Follow Richard (RJ) Eskow on Twitter: www.twitter.com/rjeskow
Chris Weigant: Predicting Florida: Newt's Petard
Rev. G. Jude Geiger: The War on Christianity
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
First...raising taxes or reducing benefits is not a solution, if it were there wouldn't be a problem. Means testing is just wrong, it penalizes those who are financially successful for being so. And, privatization...the average Social Security income is greater than the average income from private or public pensions, 401k, 403b, Keogh and IRA plans; and almost all of these plans use stocks, bonds, mutual funds and other investments.
Social Security is more than just a retirement plan, it provides disability income protection, life insurance and survivor benefits most private plans do not. In fact, if you tried to duplicate all of the benefits Social Security provides through private insurance for the average employment tax paid there would be little to go into the investment accounts.
But the real reason why I oppose these ideas is that they are all un-necessary...Social Security's financial issues are not the problem, they are the symptom of the problems. Social Security is not the problem, it's the solution!
Saving Social Security - A Commonsense Solution (free @ savingsocialsecurity.net) illustrates how just three simple changes in the administration of Social Security and its reserves can create millions of new jobs, restore health to both Social Security and the economy.
"President Obama ... used the payroll tax that funds Social Security for a "middle-class tax break" that also benefits millionaires. "
The NET effect is to help those with lower incomes and hurt those with higher ones.
You must take into account the taxes paid to the federal government which make the reduction in payroll tax possible.
Each dollar that the Federal Government contributes to the Social Security trust fund comes from progressive income taxes. Each dollar the worker did not contribute, comes from a percentage tax only on wages, only up to the taxible maximum.
For example, Mitt Romney gets no benefit from the payroll tax reduction, but will be taxed in future years to pay for general government.
Nothing must be allowed to disturb the tranquility of the commons.
We now return to our regularly scheduled commercial break. LOL
thats the easy part.
medicare and medicade are the ones that are going to take massive changes
for every dollar1$ people pay in they are getting 3$ in services........so we need to either cut the spending (never happen) or cut the benefits (nope)
Public option would fix all this. But that is not on the table because of big bad bogey men like Saul Alinsky and his radical ideas that are somehow driving our democracy to socialism..... yeah right.
as soon as people realize that in usa things govt touches get more expensive and quality is lucky to stay the same
education health care housing...........those 3 are pretty evident
more govt = more $
add the federal reserve and nixon going off the gold standard = usa in the toilet
The majority of persons insurance companies are insuring under health insurance plans are younger healthier people. Including the older population into private insurance plans will result in increased costs to the insurers and increased premiums to the insureds.
Insurance rates are all ready high for most working Americans, the cause of much of this price increase in recent years is the 46 Million uninsured Americans today. When they get sick or are injured and can not pay, doctors and hospitals have to raise their rates to the insureds to cover their losses on the uninsureds.
It's a vicious cycle we find ourselves in. High unemployment coupled with growing under-employment is the real culprit here. We need to put people back to work and provide opportunities for those under-employed to improve their situations. Putting people back to work will reduce the number of uninsureds and help curb future rate increases. Putting people back to work will also increase the amount of Medi-care taxes paid and help balance Medi-cares expenses.
thats a good start
Ron Paul had never voted to take money from social security. Ron Paul sees it as a contract right and you can go to the aarp site to see his interview on that subject or go to his webpage budget plan to see his plan balances the budget in 3 years without cutting a penny from Social Security (or medicare, or veteran's benefits.) Ron Paul himself turned down the congressional. pension as imorally rich for taxpayers to have to fund when they were under social security for themselves, so he also has been paying into it with every pay check, and that probably underlines for him what other Congressmen don't seem to feel, that it is something paid for.