-
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.”
(Page 3 of 4)
Older voters spiked from 19 percent of the electorate in 2006 to
23 percent in 2010. “Senior voters
seemed motivated by concerns about the health care law and punished
incumbent Democrats accordingly,” reported Politico at the
time. “Senior voters seemed motivated by concerns about the health
care law and punished incumbent Democrats accordingly.” Indeed, the
increase from 2006 can’t be entirely explained by senior citizens’
relative conservatism.
That this would complicate GOP efforts to reform Medicare once Paul Ryan — whose basic ideas for Medicare were already contained in his Roadmap plan well before the election — assumed the chairmanship of the House Budget Committee should have been obvious. Republicans had campaigned against the changes the Clinton administration proposed for Medicare as part of their controversial 1994 health care plan, simultaneously running against Medicare cuts and a federal takeover of the health sector. That debate had featured possibly apocryphal quotes from seniors who wanted “the government to get their hands off my Medicare” and similarly came back to haunt congressional Republicans when they turned their attention to Medicare reform.
Even the Tea Party, the inchoate group of activists pressing the GOP to cut spending and curb borrowing, appears to be conflicted about entitlements. A McClatchy/Marist poll found that 70 percent of self-described Tea Party supporters opposed cutting Medicare and Medicaid as a way to reduce the budget deficit. Those numbers were only slightly better than the 73 percent of Republicans who said they opposed such cuts and actually slightly worse than the 68 percent of conservatives who gave the same answer. (There is data that cuts the other way, however, and the methodology for determining who is a “Tea Party supporter” varies from poll to poll.)
A detailed New York Times/CBS News poll found that while 92 percent of Tea Party supporters say they want a smaller government that provides fewer services, 62 percent said the benefits from Social Security and Medicare are worth the costs. That is 14 points less than the overall percentage of voters who thought the costs were worth the benefits, but it’s a substantial majority nonetheless. The Tea Partiers polled were more likely to be on Social Security or Medicare than the general public.
Some defend Social Security and Medicare as earned entitlements, pointing out that they paid a large number of taxes into the system. These are not pure welfare programs. The New York Times, as is its wont, found a Tea Partier who recanted her support of limited government when confronted with this apparent contradiction. “That’s a conundrum, isn’t it?” she was quoted as saying. “I don’t know what to say. Maybe I don’t want smaller government. I guess I want smaller government and my Social Security.”
THE REPUBLICAN PARTY has frequently pledged to give its voters both smaller government and Social Security. But the number of Republicans openly campaigning for entitlement reform — my old colleague Phil Klein has called them the “Republican honesty caucus” — has grown. Pat Toomey has been an outspoken supporter of personal accounts for Social Security. In his 2010 Senate race, he won the senior vote by 18 points. Toomey had previously been elected to the House in a swing district — carried by both Clinton and Gore — with a large number of seniors. Likewise, Marco Rubio won a 50 percent plurality of seniors in a three-way race in Florida. His closest opponent, Charlie Crist, took just 33 percent. In Kentucky, Rand Paul, who has since introduced a bill that would means-test Social Security, was hit on entitlement reform but nevertheless won seniors by 16 points.
In Wisconsin, Ron Johnson even made Perry-like comments about Social Security being a Ponzi scheme. Instead of backing down when Democratic incumbent Russ Feingold attacked him, Johnson defended himself in an ad. Johnson beat Feingold 54 percent to 46 percent among senior citizens, though it should be noted the Republican’s biggest margin of victory was among voters aged 40 to 49. He also did well among voters whose ages stretched from 30 to 44.
An overwhelming majority of House Republicans voted for a budget that included Paul Ryan’s Medicare reforms. Most of the dissenters actually wanted a budget that cut spending even more drastically. A majority of Senate Republicans also voted with Ryan. When Newt Gingrich — perhaps seeing flashbacks from his own failed bid to rein in Medicare as House speaker — dubbed Ryan’s proposal “social engineering,” the reaction from the base was swift and harsh. An angry Iowan confronted Gingrich and told him to his face, “You’re an embarrassment to our party.”
“Why don’t you get out now before you make a bigger fool of yourself?” the man demanded in an encounter widely replayed on YouTube. “What you just did to Paul Ryan is unforgivable.” Radio talk show callers and Wall Street Journal editorialists echoed these complaints. So did longtime allies. ”I’m not going to justify this,” said Rush Limbaugh. Bill Bennett argued Gingrich had “taken himself out of serious consideration for the race.” Gingrich ended up apologizing to Ryan. His current poll numbers are only marginally healthier than Medicare’s finances.
Even individual Republicans can’t keep straight which side of this debate they are on. The same Michele Bachmann who expressed concerns about Rick Perry’s Social Security comments once called the program a “fraud.” Romney — who has in the past been less genteel when talking about Social Security himself — has suggested he would sign the Ryan Medicare reforms into law if elected president, but he has been unwilling to embrace them as his own.
Conservatives and libertarians hungry for straight talk about entitlements have praised Perry’s candor. The syndicated columnist and free-market economist Walter Williams wrote, “Three cheers to Perry for having the guts to tell us that Social Security is a monstrous lie and a Ponzi scheme.” Williams pointed out that Milton Friedman, Paul Samuelson, and even Paul Krugman have all described Social Security’s finances similarly. “We should be grateful that a major candidate has finally spoken truth to fiction,” concurred the Cato Institute’s Roger Pilon.
SOCIAL SECURITY IS a large and growing problem. Those who find comfort in the fact that it isn’t the main driver of our annual budget deficits today miss the point. The program’s unfunded liabilities of more than $16 trillion far exceed the deficit. Benefits are growing faster than revenues. The ratio of workers paying into the system to retirees drawing benefits has declined from 16 to 1 to 3 to 1. It is becoming a progressively lousier deal for workers. Many proposed reforms fix some of these problems but fail to address them all.
The stock market’s collapse has sapped public confidence in private alternatives, however. People have seen the value of their 401ks decline. The percentage of non-retirees who tell pollsters they expect to rely on Social Security benefits has started rising. The program may be a Ponzi scheme and the long-term returns of private investment may still be significantly better, but right now Americans are nervous about both.
From the perspective of partisan politics, the Perry-Romney fight may be the equivalent of mutually assured destruction. By attacking a Republican who makes limited-government and constitutionalist arguments against a major federal program, Romney is accentuating his own liabilities. He is also practically writing copy for commercials Obama will run against Perry should the Texas governor be the GOP nominee.
Perry, however, is departing from the script that has best served Republicans pushing for Social Security reform. Winning Republicans have tended to emphasize that they want to save the major entitlement programs. Democrats always insist the GOP wants to destroy them. Perry is letting himself sound like he would destroy the entitlements village in order to save it.
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.