On November 8, 1954 President Dwight Eisenhower (Ike) wrote a letter to his brother Edgar. The two, while very close, had been battling since they were kids. Things did not change while Ike was president, as they continued their debate in a series of letters (a bit before e-mail). Edgar had always complained that his brother was “too liberal” and let him know it. Ike’s answer to Edgar was not only spot on, it was a good lesson to be learned in present day America.
“This is what I mean by my constant insistence upon “moderation” in government. Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.”
Fast forward to 2010, and Paul Ryan(R-Wall Street) promoting his “Roadmap” where he advocates dismantling of social security and Medicare. While there are five people out of work for every job available (11% unemployment in Janesville), Ryan has led the charge to deny the unemployed an extension of their benefits (which are still being held up). This is the person being touted as the GOP’s rising star. Ike would disagree! I like Ike!
The only problem is that Ryan’s Roadmap does not “dismantle” Social Security or Medicare. Nothing changes for those over 55 and while the programs are reformed for those under that age, the programs and underlying principles behind them remain in place.
If you take the time to read the plan you would see that he is actually giving a lot towards the continuation of these types of social programs. The premise of the entire plan is that these programs cannot be eliminated, but also cannot be sustained in their current form, so he proposes to reform them to make them solvent.
And if you think that his “privatization” of Social Security is wrong or too risky, the plan contains several safeguards against the loss of retirement income due to market downturns. The plans are modeled after the Thrift Savings Plans that are available to all federal employees and many of my fellow soldiers use.
The only thing necessary to make Social Security solvent is to lift the annual salary cap.
Like what happened to your 401(k)s and IRAs since 2007? Or even the hits they took the first quarter of 2010? You’ll love the ‘privatization’ of Social Security!
I want you to cut and paste the specific portion of the Roadmap that ‘privatizes’ social security.
“Offers workers under 55 the option of investing over one third of their current Social Security taxes into personal retirement accounts, similar to the Thrift Savings Plan available to Federal employees. Includes a property right so they can pass on these assets to their heirs, and a guarantee that individuals will not lose a dollar they contribute to their accounts, even after inflation.”
“Personal retirement accounts” is privatization.
And having my own account that I contribute to is bad… why?
Because it is dear government’s job to take care of us.
I like how that word is just disregarded.
I don’t recall saying it was good or bad….I was simply pointing out an example of privatization, as squidknuckle requested.
So offering an option of something makes it universally and completely that way? That is your argument, right? So it then would follow, and be equally fair to say the health care reform law socializes health care.
Let me pick out a few phrases that you quoted – “The option” and “guarantee.” So if we have the option, is it privatization? If it’s guaranteed by the govt., is it privatization? Even the board that manages it is appointed by the President.
And to reiterate forgot, why is this bad?
Of course he doesnt want it to effect anyone over 55, they vote and then you could see the devastation his “roadmap” would bring first hand.
If we had followed his “roadmap” during the last couple years of stock market crashes, Social security(which has never missed a payment) would of been devastated! This is a means to the end of ending social security. He want to privatize it first so that his friend on wall st can make billions in commission before he completely dismantles it!
It is such a radical give away to wall st that he cant get many republicans to even sign off on it!
Please show a Democrat’s solution to fixing Medicare and Social Security. You may not like his solution, but he has one. What has the other side of the aisle said other than “Privatizing bad.” We have history on our side showing that government can’t handle it.
And kudos to Mike H, if you read the plan, he’s not truly privatizing social security. And you did you know Medicare has more denial of claims than private insurance?
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/368/reportcard.pdf
Once again, what is the left’s solution that does not involve raising taxes or more government.
Squid, the solution is simple. Make everyone pay the exact same when it comes to social security. Right now it stops being paid into around $100,000 of income, if you make $100,000 or $1,000,000 you are paying the exact same amount in. Just get rid of the cap and it will be viable forever. Problem solved.
Really? The program upon its inception was viable forever. Again, your solution was to raise taxes or collect more revenue to a government that SCREWED IT UP in the first place!
And I like your fancy footwork around my points about Medicare and not showing a solution by someone on the left who has laid out a plan like Ryan has.
100% correct…lift the cap.
How about the feds stop confiscating over 15% of my income for Social Security & Medicare and let me take care of it myself. Hell, I’d be willing to pay in a certain amount – say up to 5% without ever getting anything in return in order to keep a bigger chunk of my own money back.
I really have no problem contributing to a fund that helps people who need it – even if the program itself has created a culture of reliance on the government in place of self-reliance and responsibility. But don’t force me to participate in a ponzi scheme if I don’t want to. 10% is enough to fund a retirement account that will beat the hell out of what Social Security will pay.
Interesting point Locke. By the way, I contribute to a fund to help people…more than one…private and church charities…and I don’t give 15% like I give to the government charity of Social Security.
By the way, can you opt out of Social Security, or do you have to be enrolled…like Obama-care?
Opt out? Ha!
At least with Social Security, you are only enrolled if you have a job. Under Obamacare you are forced into enrollment simply by existing — a first in American history.
Well sort of – but while it’s a tax for traditionally employed people who have jobs, and their employers, it’s doubly bad for business owners and self-employed or contract workers. We get nailed with both sides of the coin – we must pay the IRS not just the employee portion, but also the employer portion.
Add to this, the new 1099K and 1099-MISC requirements that were snuck into the health care bill which will mean filing additional paperwork for nearly every substantial transaction…hotel expenses, phone service, yellow pages ads, computer service, ink or toner purchases at the local office supply store, and on and on. Every one of these things will likely require an additional 1099 filed.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/14/saving-ryans-privatization/
But I’d like to follow up on small but revealing point: Ryan’s claim that diverting a substantial share of payroll taxes receipts into individual accounts does not constitute partial privatization of Social Security You see, there’s a history here.
Back when the Cato Institute first began pushing for individual Social Security accounts, it called its push, well, The Project on Social Security Privatization. As the Bush administration got ready to make its privatization push, however, it became clear that “privatization” polled badly. So the project was renamed The Project on Social Security Choice. And Republicans began bristling at any suggestions that they were proposing privatization, calling that a slander. Really.
Wait, it gets better. Cato engaged in Orwellian tactics — deleting the term “privatization” from older web posts and even from records of old conferences. But they were sloppy; there were traces of the true history throughout. I don’t know if they’re still continuing the practice.
In any case, Ryan’s attempt to deny that what his own movement used to call privatization is, in fact, privatization should settle the question of his sincerity.
As we find out here from Krugman that what RYAN wants is privatization of Social Security and any attempt to pretend it isnt is dishonest and insincere.
Ryan has to hide his attempts at privatization because as IKE says ” Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history”