Romney/Ryan: Missed Debate Opportunities on Social Security
At the first presidential debate on October 3, aka Barack Obama’s Denver Debacle, the president, when asked by moderator Jim Lehrer whether he saw a major difference between his position and that of Republican challenger Mitt Romney on Social Security, gave this response: “I suspect that, on Social Security, we’ve got a somewhat similar position. Social Security is structurally sound.”
At last Thursday’s vice-presidential debate, incumbent Joe Biden, who probably set new all-time debate records for rude, obnoxious, interrupting, and inappropriate behavior, clearly believed he was scoring political points — and unfortunately probably did — when he told challenger Paul Ryan that “if we had listened to Romney … and the congressman during the Bush years, imagine where all those seniors would be now if their money had been in the market.”
Though both members of the GOP ticket won their respective debates on substance, each wasted an important opportunity to more fully inform the public about how the Obama-Biden administration’s historically awful economic stewardship hastened the arrival of Social Security’s currently dire circumstances, and how partial privatization can still, even at this late date, be a factor in saving it.
Contrary to what the president claimed, Social Security is not “structurally sound.” Vice-presidential debate moderator Martha Raddatz, who apparently never told the presidential debate commission which selected her that Obama attended her 1991 wedding, and who to absolutely no one’s surprise ended up being a de facto third debater Thursday, probably thought she was making a daring statement when she said that it’s “going broke.” No ma’am; it already is.
Five years ago, Social Security was taking in over $180 billion a year more in taxes than it was spending on benefits and administration. Though that annual surplus was doomed to dwindle as the wave of baby boomers began to retire, Social Security’s trustees estimated that surpluses would continue for another decade, and that triple-digit cash deficits wouldn’t arrive until many years after that.
That’s before the Community Reinvestment Act-driven, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac fraud-accelerated recession kicked in, followed by the worst so-called recovery since the Great Depression. Just a few years later, the system began running annual cash deficits. The trustees now estimate that the calendar year 2012 cash deficit (i.e., “the deficit of tax income relative to cost”) will be $165 billion. The only reason it won’t approach $300 billion is that the rest of the government is kicking in about $120 billion to offset the current-year effect of the two-point reduction in payroll tax withholding which took effect in 2011. Team Obama dishonestly demagogued against allowing that unsustainable reduction to expire earlier this year. Regardless of who wins the presidency for the next four years, and despite the soaring national debt which threatens to swallow the entire economy, restoring Social Security withholding to its prior 6.2% level will be extraordinarily difficult.
Well, that’s okay, because Social Security’s “trust fund” assets will cover those annual cash deficits for many years to come, right?
Inasmuch as the payroll taxes of wealthier payers are distributed to lower income people in order to give them more credit and more money, I think I would have appreciated the chance to rectify that with an optional investment program. As it stands right now, even waiting until 70 to file and my using my husban’s credits to file, we will never recoup was was taken from us by force and given to others.
In truth, it is too late for the Ryan plan to work. We are in too deep a hole and it is deeper now that it was 4 years ago. The only hope is that an effective leader can bring the country through the crisis that is on our doorstep. Obama is not that leader; Romney may be.
Actually, Social Security is and always has been completely bankrupt. The special Treasury securities held by the SS Trust are pieces of paper signifying nothing; the “surplus” of social security taxes collected over benefits paid having been spent immediately on bread and circuses. Doing otherwise would have imploded aggregate demand in the economy. Had the money been spent on projects yielding a stream of future benefits (roads, bridges, robust power and water systems) we’d be in better shape. But it was mainly used as handouts to buy votes.
I should correct myself. The Treasury securities held by the SST are meaningful if we consider them to be placeholders against the future use of the national borrowing capacity: “These notes signify that the US is holding back on the issuance of debt today so that we have the capacity to borrow in the future to fund social security payments.” With $ Trillion annual deficits as far as the eye can see, we can guess how that will work out!
The Socialist Insecurity Abomination is and always has been completely bankrupt.
Members of FDR’s admin admitted it.
The posters announcing it declared “There is no guarantee that the fund thus collected will ever be returned to you.”
Let us opt out, regardless of age, and, as a token of good will and request for forgiveness for having defrauded Americans for all these decades, give back some fraction of what’s been taken.
Then everyone can start fresh.
The Democrats love to claim that Social Security is a program universally loved. What’s their evidence for this claim? The fact that seniors get extremely heated when any changes to the program are proposed.
The Democrats, and RINOs, are mistaken about why seniors get upset. The real reason they get angry is that after a lifetime of having a portion of their salaries forcefully confiscated they now want their money back. They see any attempts to reform the program as potentially jeopardizing their getting their money back.
I think reformers need to challenge the Dems claims that Social Security is popular by passing a bill that makes participation voluntary.
To get the support of moderate Democrats (if any still exist) I propose the following unfair, non-conservative conditions:
1. Those that opt out forfeit all claims to all contributions.
2. Employers must continue paying their portion of FICA for employees that opt out. This will allow some level of continued funding of the program even though all thinking people know that the employer portion of FICA is in reality salary that is never actually paid to the employees.
I believe that a large majority of people under 55 would opt out immediately. So, lets test the Dems and make it optional.
I’d be the first to opt out. The FICA taxes forcibly taken from me during my working life would have paid in full for a nice house in Boise where I hope to relocate (from CA of course). Having a free and clear home when you’re elderly is the real social security, not a continually devalued check from Uncle Sugar.
We already have a model to replace Social Security: the Thrift Savings Plan, which is the 401(a) plan available to government employees (essentially the same as a private-sector 401(k) plan). The expense ratio is roughly .025% per annum, and contains five funds: the C Fund, which invests in the S&P 500, the S fund, which invests in small-to-mid-cap stocks, the F fund, which invests in corporate bonds, the I Fund, which invests in international stocks, and the G Fund, which invests in US Treasuries. There are also life-cycle funds called L-Income, L-2020, L-2030, L-2040, and L-2050, which consist of different balances of C, S, F, I, and G Fund investments according to the retirement target date outlined.
While all you say is accurate, I’ll paraphrase James Carville and say, “It’s jobs, stupid.”
Win the election and then work on issues like Social Security. Don’t get sidetracked by anything but the essentials. All bringing up Social Security now will accomplish is to give Obama yet another opportunity to demogague the issue and scare old folks.
I second the motion. Some people (such as the author of this article) just can’t seem to focus on the job at hand — or they simply refuse to. And they are a drag on what needs to be done now.
The reason Carville made that statement back in 1992 was to focus the Clinton campaign on winning. He was trying to get them to quit talking about side issues like abortion and gay rights and focus on a winning (if inaccurate) theme: The worst economy in 50 years.
We need to do the same. Yes, there are issues beyond jobs that are important and entitlements ranks very high on that list. However, those aren’t winning themes and will be used against us. Focus on winning and once accomplished, begin to address those other important issues.
What about Solyndra?
Do people really care what politicians say any more? When have politicians ever kept their “promises”? Democrats would never vote for Romney-Ryan no matter what they said in the debates. If independents/undecideds really cared, they would have already known RR’s positions, they watched for the “look presidential”.
In the first debate, Obama was an unprepared little boy whose puppies ate his homeworks. In the Biden-Ryan debate, Joker was harassing Robin. Robin held firm.
Two down, two to go.
Does anyone other than die-hard Democrats, the 47%, really want four more years of Obama? I have a feeling the Clintons and their acolytes will vote for RomneyRyan. It’s easier to attack the RomneyRyan administration than to defend ObamaBiden in Hillary’s 2016 run.
Indeed, get rid of Social Security. If people cannot save enough money for their late years they should either keep working or suffer the consequences. Our Founding Fathers, including Reagan, would get rid of this socialist program. If old people cannot fend for themselves, too bad, so sad.
How ’bout we just call it what it is. Unconstitutional. Nowhere in the Constitution is the Congress authorized to fund and maintain a pension for its citizens. This falls under the Tenth Amendment and therefore a power that states may choose to undertake (at their own peril…imagine derelict California trying to fund what would inevitably be a grossly mismanaged program with state-issued IOUs).
Then again, by that rationale Congress shouldn’t be doing the vast majority of what it does now.
The State of Alaska and most, maybe all, of its political subdivisions opted out of participation in Social Security for public employees in 1981. Most of the polisubs just stopped deducting FICA from employee paychecks and stopped sending the employer contribution. The State itself instituted the Supplemental Benefits System which took both the former employee and employer contributions to FICA and put them into managed investment accounts. State employees had this program in addition to a then VERY lucrative retirement system. My wife was in SBS for 25 of her 30 years with the State and accumulated a truly amazing amount of money. I wasn’t in it as long but mine wasn’t paltry.
We actually had discipline issues with employees during the ’90s stock boom who were acting like day traders managing their SBS accounts rather than doing their jobs. My wife was a pretty well paid, high level supervisor and there were lots of months in the ’90s she made more in earnings on her SBS account than she made in salary. Fortunately, we saw the bust coming and got into stable investments so we didn’t lose any money but many lost an awful lot of paper earnings. There were no guarantees so you could lose into your principle, but it never got that bad; don’t know what happened to people in ’08 and ’09.
The State’s defined benefit retirement system proved unsustainable. It was twice modified to try to manage costs and finally abandoned in 2006. One of the public policy issues we had to confront in abandoning the defined benefit schemes for all future employees was that those employees on their “retirement” date got handed two quite large checks and told to have a nice life; no guaranteed income and no health insurance. Many also would have no Social Security eligibility because they would not have accrued the necessary 40 quarters. In a 30 year career, my wife had only five years in SS because she started right out of high school in ’76 and the State opted out in ’81. She has since failed retirement and has taken a job that makes and requires SS contributions. Unlike most ‘crats, I had a lot of private sector experience before succombing to the lure of good credit and a steady paycheck. Funny how those bankers who wouldn’t even factor contracts for me when I was in private business wanted to “help me” get into houses and boats once I was working for the State.
The debate was about whether we were willing as public policy to say to these people, “you’re on your own, if you go to Vegas and blow this money, you either have to go back to work or go on welfare.” We ultimately decided it wasn’t our job to live their lives for them and if they blew their savings in Vegas or Anchorage’s sin dens it wasn’t the State’s problem, at least not as an employer. It hasn’t been in place long enough to have any retirees with substantial sums yet but we know from experience with the Permanent Fund Dividend what some people here do when given a large check; they wind up in jail or a shelter very quickly.
TOM, They did not miss it. They do not believe in it. Both stand with the military industrial complex period!
So, what if Paul Ryan was delving into the federal budget when he was still in high school? I didn’t peek at a federal budget until I was out of college. Yet there is no way I would have cast the votes in Congress that Ryan has through the years. Ryan voted for TARP, the auto bailouts, No Child Left Behind, the Medicare prescription drug benefit, the Bush stimulus, the Patriot Act, and military adventurism abroad. No policy maker is perfect, but no one with a conservative and or libertarian bone in their body could have supported these policies.
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/paul-ryan-biggovernment-conservative
Yeah, re-elect Obama who rules by “executive orders” so no one needs to vote for/against their base. Brilliant!
Btw, there wasn’t a Bush stimulus. His TARP was to unlock the banking system, so far is making money. Obama uses his half of the TARP illegally to bailout GM and loses us a huge bundle.
I don’t believe Ryan has voted for the auto bailouts.
No Child Left Behind has forced teachers accountability.
Medicare prescription drug benefit costs less than predicted, the only federal program that has costed less than advertised.
Military adventurism: how about cower in a corner after 911? Better?
That’s exactly what Obama is doing now. You kill our ambassador, we would say sorry by arresting a silly parolee-film maker.
No one with a bone in their body could let Obama stay around for four more years.
Actually, all those votes mean is that Ryan is smarter than Ron Paul. Granted, that’s not a terribly difficult hurdle to clear, but you managed to screw it up.
*The only vote you list which doesn’t stand on its own merits is the auto bailout, but it’s understandable given its inevitability and the auto industry’s presence in his district. Voting against it would have done nothing but made his reelection, and his ability to have any influence on policy, more difficult.
I know, lets re-elect the Communist and buy ourselves more time to find a purist to run against them. I think we take what we can get before we lose the chance. We don’t help our chances buy constantly yammering about how much better our choices should be and giving fodder to our enemy, even if that does help us to feel better about exercising the compromise we know we have to make. ABO2012
Yes, it’s cash-negative right now, five to ten years ahead of schedule, and Obama made it WORSE with his “tax cut”.
There never was a lock-box, outside of stockpiling gold there wasn’t even a WAY to have a lock-box, not really. So it’s just a matter of months before someone suggests trimming social security payouts. Say, February.
Or, if Bernanke just prints enough money each year to make up the deficit … I would guess that’s exactly the plan, but officially Obama can’t order him to, can he?
Some of you cheerleaders are cheering for your own slavery! Let freedom ring from and away from the establishment. It is time to make a stand for freedom from Federal Fascism!
Published on Aug 23, 2012 by invisiblerme William Binney is among a group of N.S.A. whistle-blowers, including Thomas A. Drake, who have each risked everything — their freedom, livelihoods and personal relationships — to warn Americans about the dangers of N.S.A. domestic spying; A top-secret program he says is broadly collecting Americans’ personal data.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OemwW60VxDY&feature=plcp
Actually you do a disservice to the Bush proposal which was to phase in the contributions to private accounts starting in Jan 2009. The return on the S&P 500 since then has been 54%!!! I was shocked Ryan did not call Biden out on this.
TWO OTHER MISSED CHANCES
One was citing the Joint Chiefs of Staff as saying the White House strategy was the right one. The Joint Chiefs has never disagreed with the White House. Several times they have discussed resigning en mass but have not done so. Now would be the time, for a number of reasons. The White House doctrine ruled the Joint Chiefs since the reorganization of the Armed Forces in 1948, which severed military control of the military and substituting civilian control. Officers speak in opposition to the White House only as civilians. If still in the service, they will be civilians in 24 hours.
The other was in saying the Iranians don’t have a delivery vehicle for their enriched Uranium. It was disingenuous because his statement referred only to Uranium enriched 20%, which is not weapons grade. That can maybe make a dirty bomb but it would be rather heavy. It will also make a radiation hazard bomb by using a conventional explosion to disperse radioactive Uranium. Biden expected everyone to confine “delivery vehicle” to a bomb or a rocket. A 20% destructive device or a modern nuke could be delivered by a big cargo jet or by a train or in a ship which would blow up in NY harbor when there is a strong onshore flow of wind. When Biden said 20% and above, there was nothing but disinformation following.
Obama is obsessed w/ rich ppl. Sad. No one else really cares about Bain but if he wants to waste his time, fine. But it’s not going to gain my vote. He has abused the office so much that Romney could be a two-headed sex change from outer space and he would still get my vote.
This might be a tad off topic, but wanted to share with like-minded people. You might be racist”, new song making fun of MSNBC talking heads! Funny song about MSNBC race card losers,
laugh at their hate!