-
Adieu, Adieu, Remember Me
March 25, 2011 | 38 comments
-
DeMint’s Defense of RomneyCare is Ignorant…And Dangerous
March 17, 2011 | 85 comments
-
McConnell Pushing Vote to Block the EPA from Regulating Carbon Emissions
March 17, 2011 | 9 comments
-
More Barbour on Afghanistan
March 16, 2011 | 8 comments
-
House Passes Three Week Spending Bill
March 15, 2011 | 8 comments
The Spectacle Blog
The Marco Rubio campaign says that I “mischaracterized” the Florida Senate candidate’s position on Social Security in my earlier post.
Rubio spokesman Alex Burgos emails:
We just read your column on Marco Rubio and Social Security and believe he has been mischaracterized.
After studying the issue and CBO reports on the fiscal impact of personal accounts, Marco concluded their time had come and gone because they actually take money out of the system and make it harder to make Social Security solvent. Though this somehow seems new to news outlets, the reality is that he has been saying this since March - to the Wall Street Journal and on the FOX News Sunday debate - during the height of the Republican primary.
However, the column is unfair to conclude that Rubio has “cowered” on Social Security and that “Rubio’s fear of talking about serious Social Security reform is indicative of a larger problem…”
We beg to differ. With all due respect, I don’t know if there’s another U.S. Senate candidate in the country who has been as honest about the challenges facing Social Security as Marco. Throughout this entire campaign, he has been very clear that younger workers (probably under 55 years old) won’t have Social Security if we don’t consider reforms like the retirement age or indexing. Doing nothing is unacceptable because it will bankrupt the program and America.
In a state like Florida where senior scare tactics on this issue are second nature to Democrats (and now say-and-do-anything-to-win politicians like Charlie Crist), this is not easy.
This is what makes your column’s characterization of Marco all the more upsetting.
What’s upsetting is for a conservative candidate to abandon the idea of personal accounts by saying their time has “come and gone.” Personal accounts are also about freedom — about moving from a society where young workers are forced to participate in a pyramid scheme (standing at the bottom), to one in which there’s an element of individual choice over how to allocate one’s own money toward their own retirement. And as it turns out, Paul Ryan has presented a proposal for Social Security reform that includes personal accounts, and the CBO determined that his plan makes the program solvent. So I disagree with the Rubio campaign’s position that there has to be a trade-off between personal accounts and solvency.
View all comments (12) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Philip Klein
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/09/28/rubio-campaign-says-his-positi
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
JASmius | 9.28.10 @ 1:54PM
Maybe the issue here is your use of the word "cowers" given the context of this site's uber-purity fetish that prompts its posters to flame even the most stalwart of "conservative rock stars" if they deviate in the slightest from AmSpec's prescribed policy dogma (the latter with which I by and large agree). It makes you guys sound like you're looking to turn every ally into a RINO enemy to be purged.
I don't know what permanent rump minority status turns you people on so much, but couldn't we save the intramural fighting words for....well, how 'bout *never*?
Martin| 9.28.10 @ 3:02PM
Rubio's a neocon stooge -- the enthusiasm of the sillier writers at National review for him, very early on, indicated as much. He's unreliable on immigration too and when really tough issues come up is likely to develop severe RINOism.
Having said that, he's worth supporting, especially over Charlie Crist. But there are much better new senatorial possibilities this year -- Paul, Miller, maybe Buck, DioGuardi, Raese, Toomey. Any money, work or just enthusiasm should go to those.
JP| 9.28.10 @ 3:46PM
Philip,
Social Security has always been a "pay-as-you-go" entitlement. The current batch of workers pay for the current batch of retirees. The funding of Social Security, therefore, has always been tied to the generosity of Congress and simple demographics. In 1937 there were 40 retriees to every retiree. In a few years, some demographers fear that the ratio will drop to less than 2 to 1. The TFR (Total Fertility Rate) of the US has been somewhere between 1.8 to 2.0; however, this number drops to 1.5 if one excludes immigrants. The TFR of the US between 1946 and 1966 was about 3.8 per female. Simply put: Social Security is unsustainable.
And sadly, there isn't enough projected growth to propel individual private accounts to the forefront. Rapidly aging nations do not take risks. And our nation will be seeing a huge re-distribution of wealth from the young to the old these next 3 decades. The Baby Boomers will spend every last nickle of thier wealth on health care, expensive gated communities, and retiree entertainment. As one economists noted a few years ago, the Baby Boomers will be the first generation in history that will leave its progeny with nothing but bills.
There is no easy political answer. Social Security is unaffordable, and after 2008 few trust the markets. I hope everyone has extra space for granny and gramps; they will be moving in in a few years.
Tim*| 9.28.10 @ 5:35PM
Time To Get Real & Deal With Social Security & Medicare .
Read : Young Guns: A New Generation of Conservative Leaders, by Republican Congressmen Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor, and Kevin McCarthy .Paul Ryan Discusses privatizing Social Security and Medicare vouchers.
Tim*| 9.28.10 @ 5:35PM
Time To Get Real & Deal With Social Security & Medicare .
Read : Young Guns: A New Generation of Conservative Leaders, by Republican Congressmen Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor, and Kevin McCarthy .Paul Ryan Discusses privatizing Social Security and Medicare vouchers.
Oldefarte| 9.28.10 @ 7:07PM
Folks, Social Security has never been, is not now, nor will it ever be A PROBLEM. SS's sitution now is that its funding has been STOLEN over time by our government and its funding used to pay for other government activities. That was the idea discussed by Gore etc [establishing a LOCK BOX on SS]. The remedy for this theft is to demand/require that our government PAY BACK every dime that was previously diverted/stolen from SS dedicated funds, since it should be legally required that congress does so. After this $trillion of stolen funds are replaced, then, if necessary due to the huge future influx of baby-boomer retirees that are anticipated in the next ten years, consider options like raising the retirement age for say 50 year olds and younger; or requiring that all income be subject to SS taxes [or a gradually reduced basis/percentage taxable];etc as solutions. Again SS's problem is minor and its solution requires forcing the government to pay back its previously stolen from SS funds!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Nate| 9.28.10 @ 9:59PM
Look.
You guys either support social security or you don't.
You CLAIM you want to cut taxes and will balance the budget by cutting spending. You won't cut defense spending.
So WHAT will you cut, and by how much, and WHEN will your leaders go on television and say so?
If you want to cut social security, say so. Say by how much, and when.
If you want to cut Medicare, say so. Say by how much, and when.
Until then, I call "bullshit" everytime a Republican talks fiscal responsibility. Republicans didn't give it to us during the past decade, which they controlled a majority of the time. I see no reason to believe them now unless they invest some political capital in the words. LET'S HEAR SPECIFICS. What will you cut, and when?
2Anglico| 9.29.10 @ 9:36AM
First we'll cut your food stamps. Then your rent subsidy is gone. You won't need that electricity subsidy after you move back in with your mommy.
Tim*| 9.29.10 @ 10:19AM
ObamaBoy Nate doesn't wanna Privatize Social Security or Voucher Medicare .
So Where's The Democrat Solution to The Gigantic Elephant In The Middle Of The Room ?
Aaaaand Where's The Democrat Pledge To America ?
Sound......... Crickets
in my 50's| 9.28.10 @ 10:56PM
Social Security an entitlement?
Yeah, I'm entitled to my money back after 35 years of work!
I can tell who is younger on these sites. Resentful. Since the liberals have taken away their ability to work, they assume none of us have ever worked.
You can privatize for younger people after you cut taxes, get the socialists out of office , get rid of obamacare, Acorn, and get rid of all of the government "golden hand shake" retirement packages.
Taking social security away from all of the business people, while you give government and unions premium retirement will incite riots.
Improve the economy!
I can't believe how much has been destroyed in two years. Congress is just desperate for money. Hell....they would sell their Grandmother! Oh wait, thats what we're talking about.
Throw the old people under the bus! I knew the democrats wanted to with Obama "care" (go home and take a pill), but I didn't think the Republicans would be so stupid.
Entitlement.
Just pay back the money you stole from me.
(And it was never pay-as-you-go. Well, perhaps at conception). It was a forced retirement savings that has been stolen
in my 50's| 9.28.10 @ 11:15PM
young guns, take a pill.
Why don't you pay taxes and social security and raise children and send them to college?
This could have been fixed.
You generation elected Obama.
This is your fault.
JP| 9.29.10 @ 9:57AM
Nate,
The projected Social Security shortfall through 2080 is over $50 trillion. That is, Social Security will be running an annual defecit of almost $800 billion in that period. The problem, as I said before is simple -there will not be enough workers earning the kind of incomes needed to fianance this entitlement (add in Medicare, and things get worse). It is not a question of whether one supports Social Security or not. In the next 15 years, we will either reform it or default on our debts. It is that simple.
This nation for the last 40 years decided that smaller families were preferrable to larger ones. But this nation continued to make larger and larger promises to its seniors. And everyone knew (ie politicians, academics, etc...) knew that in the long run, this system was vastly under-funded. But, they just kicked the can down the road. We are vastly underpopulated to make the kind of promises that Congress now offers all retirees. We might as well off free Lexus's to all retirees.