-
Dick Morris’ Bad Entitlements Advice
April 1, 2013 | 41 comments
-
Will Welker Walk?
March 11, 2013 | 273 comments
-
Not Yet Elite, But Pretty Neat
February 5, 2013 | 8 comments
-
The Harbaugh Bowl
January 22, 2013 | 33 comments
-
Tom Terrific
January 14, 2013 | 55 comments
Feature
Split Personality
What the Republican divide over Social Security means for the future of entitlement reform. Our November cover story, “It’s GOP Gut-Check Time.”
MITT ROMNEY has spent the bulk of this year leading all the declared Republican presidential candidates in most national polls. Rick Perry’s announcement quickly changed that. Among many other considerations, a Texas governor is simply a better cultural fit for the GOP primary electorate than a former Massachusetts governor. But Romney didn’t get to where he is today by surrendering in the face of adversity.
Like Romney, Perry has chinks in his conservative armor. But it soon became clear that Romney — who did, after all, win an election in a state where only 13 percent of registered voters are Republicans — wasn’t going to confine himself to attacking Perry’s deviations from conservative orthodoxy. (Romney is hardly the best positioned Republican candidate to do so.)
Romney’s strategists combed Perry’s book Fed Up! and came up with what they considered to be some fairly provocative statements about Social Security. “Look at what happened to Paul Ryan when he proposed a plan to save Medicare, they say,” wrote Marc Thiessen in the Washington Post. “Romney’s campaign will argue that Perry is against the very idea of Social Security and Medicare, and that he will use Perry’s book to scare seniors in early-primary states with large retiree populations, such as Florida and South Carolina.”
“By any measure, Social Security is a failure,” Perry wrote, one that “we have been forced to accept for more than 70 years now.” Perry called the massive retirement program a “Ponzi scheme” and suggested that it was unconstitutional, saying it was created “at the expense of respect for the Constitution and limited government.”
True to Thiessen’s reporting, Romney has launched a full-court offensive against Perry’s Social Security remarks. He suggested a Republican nominee with these views cannot beat President Obama in the general election. “If we nominate someone who the Democrats could correctly characterize as being against Social Security, we would be obliterated as a party,” Romney told Sean Hannity.
“The governor says look, states ought to be able to opt out of Social Security. Our nominee has to be someone who isn’t committed to abolishing Social Security, but who is committed to saving Social Security,” Romney said standing next to Perry at a Republican candidates’ debate. The day of another debate in senior-heavy Florida — which turned out to be a fairly disastrous one for Perry — Romney published an op-ed on Fox News’ website titled, elegantly, “Rick Perry Wants to Dismantle Social Security.”
“Does Governor Perry believe Social Security is unconstitutional,” Romney asked, “or is he advocating its elimination because he believes fifty separate programs would be better public policy?” Romney senior adviser Eric Fehrnstrom said that nominating someone who used Perry’s “radical rhetoric” would be a “disaster” for the GOP. “In the book and on the media tour, [Perry] attacks Social Security as a failure from its very inception,” Fehrnstrom told National Review. “He said it does violence to the founding principles of this country. He suggested we should end it as a federal entitlement and give it to the states.”
Whether they support Rick Perry or not, Romney’s conservative critics might be tempted to reply, “Of course Mitt Romney would hit Perry from the left on Social Security.” But Romney’s Social Security attacks on Perry have been joined by Tea Party favorite Michele Bachmann.
“People, I think, rightly have a genuine concern about the governor’s commitment to Social Security benefits for current retirees,” she told the Des Moines Register. The Minnesota congresswoman also said in an interview with CNN, “America needs to keep its promise to senior citizens, I talk to them all the time. I love senior citizens. I care about them.”
Bachmann has good reasons to want to take Perry down a peg. Since he got into the race, her Iowa lead has evaporated and her national poll numbers have dropped precipitously.
It is nevertheless telling that a Republican as conservative as Bachmann would criticize Perry in this fashion. The Social Security debate goes far beyond the 2012 horse race and will have implications for the party even if neither Perry nor Romney winds up the nominee. Republicans have struggled with a contradiction: they are the party of fiscal conservatism and Social Security-receiving senior citizens. The two groups most shortchanged by the current system — young people and minorities — were the voting blocs most loyal to Obama.
On these issues, the Republican Party’s principles and political self-interest are in conflict. This could be a defining moment for how the GOP resolves its longstanding schizophrenia on entitlements.
IN 1964, Barry Goldwater raised constitutional questions about Social Security and proposed making the program voluntary. (The former is hardly a crackpot position, incidentally. Virtually no one thought the Constitution authorized anything like Social Security prior to the 1930s.) It was one of many reasons he was buried in a landslide.
After Goldwater, few candidates were so bold again. Those who did were either unsuccessful, like Oliver North in his 1994 Virginia Senate candidacy, or were elected in safe Republican districts, like Perry’s fellow Texans Dick Armey and Ron Paul.
Ronald Reagan was on record taking Goldwater’s position on Social Security in 1964. He also opposed the creation of Medicare in 1965. At least one subsequent Republican nominee, Bob Dole, voted against Medicare as a member of Congress. Both Reagan and Dole subsequently emphasized their support for an alternative proposal called Eldercare. In 1980 candidate Reagan strenuously denied he had any plans to cut either Social Security or Medicare. “There you go again,” he famously said when Jimmy Carter accused him of harboring such intentions.
About the Author
W. James Antle, III, author of the new book Devouring Freedom: Can Big Government Ever Be Stopped?, is editor of the Daily Caller News Foundation and a senior editor of The American Spectator. You can follow him on Twitter @jimantle.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (22) | Leave a comment
More Articles by W. James Antle, III
More Articles From Feature
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/11/21/split-personality
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Jack in Wi| 11.21.11 @ 9:12AM
The only Republican who has a plan to save Social Security and Medicare for our present elderly and to give young people an option to opt out is Ron Paul. His proposed budget would cut 1 trillion from the buget in 1 year and not put our elderly and poor out in the street. The military, foreign aid, and numerous Deptments and regulations have to be cut before one penny is cut from our entitlements in this depession. Cut the Federal workforce and Federal pensions, before we cut Social Security. Naturally in this whole article there is not one mention of Ron Paul, who has a detailed plan. Has been candidates like Michelle Bachman, and Rick Perry are given prominent features but the one man who has an actual plan and the guts to push it isn't mentioned. Get Ron Paul's plan on line and read it for youselves. Nobody else has one but Paul Ryan and he isn't running. Ryan's plan would lead to huge electoral losses for the Republicans among the elderly and poor. It was written to protect the elitess from taxes and the military and other deptments from needed cuts.
I notice Mr. Antle did not mention last weeks favorite flavor Newt Gingrich. I guess no-one in his right mind wants to mention him any more. Lets see if we can somehow inflate the deflated balloon Perry once again. Well all the Kings horses and all the Kings men could not put that Humptey Dumpty together again.
Drunken Sailor| 11.21.11 @ 10:48AM
"The only Republican who has a plan to save Social Security and Medicare for our present elderly and to give young people an option to opt out is Ron Paul."
Bullshit. Paul Ryan said the same thing. Paul may be the only canidate getting that word out there and that may be what you meant (though I doubt it). But Ryan has been the most vocal Republican.
Purpleguy| 11.21.11 @ 10:44AM
Private accounts? O h, you mean like the switch from defined benefit pension to defined contribution pensions (401k, etc.) ? Yeah, I want my Social Security at the whim of the market forces - NOT. Social Security Insurance is just that - insurance, not a pension. Everyone pays into it and everyone is entitled to their insurance against poverty in their retirement.
If the Billionaires and Millionaires want to pay more taxes, remove the cap to Social Security and solvency is assured forever. Modify the age of attainment, if you must - otherwise, leave Social Security alone.
SUBVET| 11.21.11 @ 2:19PM
Jackentroll.......Ron Paul has as much chance being elected as Jessie Jackson. When the dust settles in 11 months you have to pick the canadate that can beat barry. Stand back and ask yourself who might that be........not Paul.
Wayne| 11.21.11 @ 9:12AM
This is a foolish time for the GOP to talk about social security. Obama did not create it. The problems we are having now are do to the crazy spending of Obama and the Democratic cronies. Undoing all of Obama's spending activities needs to be the GOP focus. Then start thinking about cutting needless bureaucracies. But don't alienate millions of seniors before the 2012 election. That plays into Obama's reelection strategy.
C Bowen | 11.21.11 @ 6:37PM
Paul TARP Ryan?
Are you joking? He has no plan to balance the budget, even in 10 years! Yet, he still wants to cut bennies. The calculus of his politics are suicide.
Ron Paul on the other hand, has an actual method to balance the budget in three years and protect the payments for the meantime, while letting younger folks opt out.
Clint| 11.21.11 @ 5:53PM
Dr.Ron Paul Had A Social Security Plan In The 2008 Election.
Throughout his 2008 campaign Ron Paul repeatedly outlined a solution to the problem that gives both the Democrats and Republicans reason to smile. Paul proposes to utilize some of the massive amounts of money saved by switching to a non-intervention foreign policy to help those people currently dependent until the programs can be phased out over a long period of time. He would let the younger people immediately opt out of the program. The approach is a sensible and gradual approach.
Margie| 11.21.11 @ 3:12PM
Paul Ryan is Presidential material. I hope he runs for the office one day. A fine man is he.
Timothy L. Pennell| 11.21.11 @ 9:21AM
The PROBLEM is that Congress has been STEALING THAT MONEY, for Generations. They still are. How do we "FIX" Soc. Sec. if we're not gonna do anything about THE PROBLEM?
Clint| 11.21.11 @ 11:10PM
" Ron Paul is surging, an Iowa and New Hampshire front-runner and powerful third-party possibility
By Brent Budowsky - 11/21/11 10:04 AM ET
There are now multiple polls that show Ron Paul has gained support and has a legitimate chance to come in first or second in Iowa and New Hampshire. I would now call Ron Paul one of three front-runners in both Iowa and New Hampshire alongside Mitt Romney and a third candidate, currently Newt Gingrich. If Ron Paul wins Iowa, which he might, all bets are off. Also, most analysts miss the fact that many states have open systems where independents, and in some cases Democrats, can vote for a Republican nominee. This could give a further boost to Paul."
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here & In Iowa.
W| 11.21.11 @ 5:50PM
We should have a choice whether we want our own private IRA or the SS program.
I prefer to invest it myslef. If you want the feds, who invested in Solyndra, to manage your money, then that is your choice. But if Hillary, who turned $1000 into $100,000 in a year, was managing the money I might reconsider.
It is called insurance but it is not insurance. You are not guaranteed either a return or any amount. You are guaranteed only what the Gov can afford to pay when you retire.
The cap on taxable income for FICA will be raised, but his will hurt employers who have to match the employee's 7.5%.
Jack in Wi| 11.21.11 @ 4:30PM
Romney and Gingrich are both un-electable. Neither one of them will attract the young, Independent and disgruntleed Democrat voters necessary to win a national election. No war pro-banker Republican can win. The vast majorty of voters want our of these foreign wars, and foreign aid. They want Social Security saved and the troops home. Obama will promise them both. That he won't deliver won't matter when you have people like Newt and Romney running. The only guy who polls well among the Independents, Young and disgruntled Democrats is Ron Paul. He beats Obama by 10 points.
Notary Sojac| 11.21.11 @ 10:14AM
Actually, that's not the problem. The problem is that the money they stole is gone.
The question is, do we replace that money through benefit cuts, through tax increases on younger workers, or on a combination of both...
Dave | 11.21.11 @ 9:13AM
Speaking of Mitt ...
One of my favorite writers is Ann Coulter. I love her thinking process and style. Wrapped into her basic smartness is a razor sharp wit that helps slice through some of the grammarian feldergarb that occasionally dots the landscape of political commentary. In a nutshell, like her or not, she writes in an easy to understand, street level style, punctuated with that snappy sense of humor. And while I agree with most of her takes, it sometimes comes with a raised eyebrow.
A few days ago, Ann wrote a column on the recent surge in popularity of Newt Gingrich. She brought out some old skeletons that had been left hanging in his closet and laid them out for some critical rethinking. At the end, there was a lot more for we among the old schoolers to consider before interrogating the new boyfriend.
While I approve most of Annie's style choices, I'm kind of like a concerned dad who occasionally gets nervous about some of the boys she dates. And I'm afraid this Mitt Romney kid might be another Eddie Haskel. At first blush, he's a guy who always wears a proper tie, claims he loves baseball (maybe the Red Sox), but tends to grin big a little too much. When he shows up on TV, I usually spritz the air with a can of pine scented Glade to get the lingering whiffs of Old Spice out of the room. Then there was that other one she had a crush on a few months ago. I think his name was Chris Crispy or ... Christie. He wasn't the slick dresser the Mitt kid is, and was a few pounds on the portly side. Still, he was clean cut looking in an I just shampooed sort of way. He also had the obligatory Peposident smile. Unfortunately, the extra chins around his neck made it tough to tell which side of his face he was talking out of. That's a big red flag.
I'll always love Annie, but her choice in men sometimes leaves me wondering if I might be on the wrong track. I suppose the good news is, neither of these latest crushes are apt to end up sitting in the pews of some hate mongering community preacher, ranting about how God ought to be damning the country, and inciting anarchy in the streets of downtown Mayberry.
I realize Annie will have to live with her choices. And I hope she ends up with one that won't break her heart after the dance. Having a few lessons stashed my senior belt, and always concerned about her well being, I'm afraid this latest crush might, sooner or later, drain her spirit in the same way that kid from Kenya sapped a lot of spirits over the last three years. I knew that guy was bad news from the git-go, but had some difficulty convincing others along the street to keep a close eye on him. What concerns me today is that while the Kenya kid and his posse ended up trashing the neighborhood in short order, these assorted Mitt's and Christie's would probably leave the neighborhood in, pretty much, the same condition. It just might take them a little longer.
Meanwhile, the guys I'd hoped Ann might go the dance with were, one-by-one, kicked out of the campus glee club and relegated to eat their lunches with the school's great unwashed. Or as they're known among the cliques: the uncool kids. When you take time to sift through the pecking order of desirable choices, too often the kids riding skate boards can't match up with those who's daddy's bought them a Benz.
In the end ... the heart wants what it wants. I only hope Annie doesn't regret what she wished for. I suspect we all do.
Quartermaster| 11.21.11 @ 6:36PM
I would like to think the US voter isn't stupid. Alas, the US voter has proven time and again they are morons.
Never, never, never overestimate the intelligence of the US voter. All they see is what they want, and are listening to see who will give it.
topeka| 11.22.11 @ 12:37PM
... not morons... at least not most of them.
They are brainwashed - which is worse.
A moron will often stop hurting other people when they scream, and they usually have the wit to pull their finger out of a socket when it shocks the begebus out of them.
The brainwashed will not do the first and cannot do the latter. That's the difference.
TrueBlue| 11.21.11 @ 3:11PM
Honestly the Repubs don't even really need to talk entitlement reform during the 2012 elections, just point to all the massive cuts that Obamacare does to their current Medicare and Medicaid that most people don't even realize are in the bill. Get rid of that as soon as they're in, THEN they can start talking reform.
At that point it's a matter of having the guts to get done what needs to get done without concern for re-election. Sadly that won't happen because the majority of politicians are career folks that have never had a private sector job, so they wouldn't know where to go for work next.
Peppermint Tea| 11.21.11 @ 9:45AM
Antle has shown the Republican reluctance to address the problem. Ditto the Super Committee. The problem is not in the politicos, it is in ourselves. We want smaller government AND continued government Soc Sec checks!
This will continue until we realize Uncle Sam has been lying about the Cost of Living inflation (see shadowstats.com) and will continue to do so until the Soc Sec payments are worth a fraction of what they were just 10 years ago. The decline of the dollar "SAVES" social security as the boomers retire with worthless dollars. All hail the dollars decline! The fix for everything!
But of course the dying dollar is a mirror of our dying nation. Read "The Great Depression Checklist" chapters about the endgame.
1ConservativeUSA| 11.21.11 @ 10:28AM
Romneycare is a problem, but I will take Mr. Romney at his word that he would repeal Obamacare if elected. My big problem with Romney is that he is proposing false reforms to "save" Social Security.
Means testing, raising the retirement age, raising the workers contribution tax to Social Security, rasing the tax burden on Social Security benefits and government control of inflation increases to benefits are ALL FALSE REFORMS.
Worse, these are property and liberty stealing mechanisms of the federal government, which desperately wants to retain control of Social Security funds, hence retaining control over the governed.
Ronald Reagan, may God bless his soul, has the blemish of kicking this can down the road as he "saved" Social Security by raising the retirement age. Let this be a lesson that it did not work.
I will excuse president Reagan for this error, first because we all make them; second, because he contributed significantly towards our liberty and prosperitry by governing based on his core belief in our founding principles.
The only real reform, the only reform that ensures Social Security will be saved, and most important, the reform that will reduce government spending while returning property and freedom to We the People, is private Social Security accounts.
No conservative should support anything else.
Naturalborn Texicanette| 11.21.11 @ 10:37AM
"Has beens", huh..........................
It Ain't over yet.......................
Margie| 11.21.11 @ 3:15PM
And the simple mind of Man can understand that.
c. j. acworth| 11.21.11 @ 6:58AM
Somehow a bridge strategy must be formulated to transition the country from SS as currently instituted to a system of private accounts. IRA's were the first brick in that bridge, or so I thought when I started mine back in the days of St. Reagan. I understood that as my personal account grew, my dependence on SS would shrink, so if benefits were cut or the system went bankrupt when I hit 65, I would still be OK. Conservatives need to be very clear that grandma is not going to be left twisting in the wind, but that the younger you are, the less you can expect from your fellow taxpayers in the future. Unfortunately, that means instilling a sense of personal responsibility in people who have been told since they were infants that they are God's gift to the world and deserve to have everything handed to them on a plate. It's getting awfully hard to remain optimistic.