Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Clinton Would Have Saved Social Security If Not for Ken Starr
CHRONWATCH.COM ^ | APRIL 14, 2005 | NOEL SHEPPARD

Posted on 04/14/2005 9:16:57 PM PDT by CHARLITE

Isn’t it amazing how many wonderful things former President William Jefferson Clinton would have done for this world if it wasn’t for the uncalled-for meddling of Special Prosecutor Ken Starr?

The most recent such revelation suggests that Mr. Clinton would have reformed Social Security in his second term if he had not been distracted by those dastardly and unnecessary impeachment proceedings. Such are the proclamations in a San Francisco Chronicle front-page story entitled "Social Security rehab died first under Clinton.”
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/04/11/MNGKIC697J1.DTL

To begin with, the Chronicle’s Carolyn Lochhead states that saving Social Security from imminent insolvency was a key initiative of the Clinton administration:

“'It would be unconscionable if we failed to act,’ President Bill Clinton said at a forum in 1998, when he made fixing the nation's retirement program a top priority of his second term.”

Top priority? In his 1998 State of the Union address, Mr. Clinton spent three paragraphs on Social Security out of a total of 140. That’s less than two minutes of an hour and a half speech. Is that how much time a president devotes to his top priority?

That said, here was the crux of his solution presented to the nation that evening:

“Tonight, I propose that we reserve 100 percent of the surplus – that's every penny of any surplus – until we have taken all the necessary measures to strengthen the Social Security system for the 21st century.”

In his 1999 SOTU address, Clinton “increased” his focus on this “top priority” by committing ten out of 160 paragraphs to this issue offering basically the same solution:

“Specifically, I propose that we commit 60 percent of the budget surplus for the next 15 years to Social Security, investing a small portion in the private sector just as any private or state government pension would do.”

In reality, both of these proposals were red herrings, and would have had a negligible impact on Social Security’s imminent insolvency if enacted. Why? Because in the four years that our nation was supposed to be in the midst of budget surpluses as far as the eye can see, the actual on-budget surpluses totaled $25.9 billion. That’s it. The other $533.4 billion worth of reported unified budget surpluses during this four-year period emanated directly from off-budget trust accounts -- MOSTLY Social Security.

Given this, Mr. Clinton’s fabulous idea was to allocate budget surpluses to Social Security that were largely already in the Social Security trust. On the streets of Manhattan, this is widely referred to as a Three Card Monty.

However, the most uproarious solution to this imminent crisis offered by our 42nd president came in his 2000 SOTU address wherein he committed only one sentence of his entire speech to this “top priority”:

“Tonight, I ask you to work with me to make a bipartisan down payment on Social Security reform by crediting the interest savings from debt reduction to the Social Security Trust Fund so that it will be strong and sound for the next 50 years.”

What makes this so hysterical, and somewhat insulting? Well, because there never was any debt reduction during Mr. Clinton’s second term. In fact, contrary to Democratic assertions and public opinion, the last year that America’s gross federal debt declined was 1969. As such, there wouldn’t have been any interest savings, and, therefore, wouldn’t have been one penny credited to the Social Security trust under this proposal.

I would venture a guess that like most Americans, Ms. Lochhead was not aware of this. Moreover, though she suggests as her article continues that it was questions about Monica Lewinsky that distracted the president from keeping his focus on Social Security reform, nowhere does she address military attacks in Kosovo as the real source of this distraction.

Instead, she conveniently chooses to omit that many people at the time felt that Clinton intentionally used problems in Kosovo and the need for U.S. involvement as a smokescreen to divert the public's attention away from his sexual indiscretions. Remember the movie "Wag The Dog," Carolyn?

In the end, former Clinton advisor Dick Morris has proffered on many occasions the real truth that the left conveniently ignores about this issue. In his view as a high-profile member of the Clinton team, the primary reason the administration moved away from any serious discussion of Social Security reform was because Clinton was advised by top Democratic leaders that he would be doing his party a huge disservice if he repaired a problem that they all needed to be able to campaign on every two years.

Of course, another truly delicious snippet of hypocrisy rests with the following obvious question that appears to have eluded Ms. Lochhead and her ilk: If Clinton was so prescient seven years ago with his concerns regarding America's largest retirement program, why are today’s Democrats trying to convince the American people that President Bush is inventing a problem that doesn't really exist?

Or, did Social Security become financially solvent the very moment Al Gore lost in 2000?

About the Writer: Noel Sheppard is a business owner, economist, and writer residing in Northern California. Noel receives e-mail at slep@danvillebc.com.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: billclinton; democrats; desertfox; elections; iraq; issues; kenstarr; kosovo; monicalewinsky; reform; secondterm; socialsecurity; toppriority

1 posted on 04/14/2005 9:17:05 PM PDT by CHARLITE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE
Clinton Would Have Saved Social Security If Not For Ken Starr

....and he would have been faithful if not for Monica, yuk, yuk.

2 posted on 04/14/2005 9:20:07 PM PDT by Lijahsbubbe (Expedients are for the hour, but principles are for the ages.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE
Or, did Social Security become financially solvent the very moment Al Gore lost in 2000?

Oh, is that what happened? No wonder I'm confused :)

3 posted on 04/14/2005 9:25:26 PM PDT by upchuck ("If our nation be destroyed, it would be from the judiciary." ~ Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE
Would of, Could of, Should of ........

Sure -- if he could have kept his bent dick zipped up..

But -- He didn't.....

Proving he was an inexcusable jerk.... Literally.

Semper Fi

4 posted on 04/14/2005 9:25:27 PM PDT by river rat (You may turn the other cheek, but I prefer to look into my enemy's vacant dead eyes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE
[vomit]

5 posted on 04/14/2005 9:29:43 PM PDT by Petronski (I thank God Almighty for a most remarkable blessing: John Paul the Great.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

What a load of FECES. ROTFLMAO.


6 posted on 04/14/2005 9:30:17 PM PDT by U S Army EOD (My US Army daughter outshot everybody in her basic training company.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

I'm glad I read the article before responding to the title.


7 posted on 04/14/2005 9:46:03 PM PDT by scott7278 ("Please disperse...there is nothing to see here.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE
In the end, former Clinton advisor Dick Morris has proffered on many occasions the real truth that the left conveniently ignores about this issue. In his view as a high-profile member of the Clinton team, the primary reason the administration moved away from any serious discussion of Social Security reform was because Clinton was advised by top Democratic leaders that he would be doing his party a huge disservice if he repaired a problem that they all needed to be able to campaign on every two years.

There it is.

8 posted on 04/14/2005 9:48:39 PM PDT by scott7278 ("Please disperse...there is nothing to see here.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scott7278
"This just in".........from my friend, Noel Sheppard, the author of this piece:

"For those who are vomiting and worse, might I suggest that you read the entire article? The title and introduction are meant to be humorous and ironic."

9 posted on 04/14/2005 9:56:05 PM PDT by CHARLITE (Women are powerful; freedom is beautiful.........and STUPID IS FOREVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
See Post #9:

"For those who are vomiting and worse, might I suggest that you read the entire article? The title and introduction are meant to be humorous and ironic."

10 posted on 04/14/2005 9:57:09 PM PDT by CHARLITE (Women are powerful; freedom is beautiful.........and STUPID IS FOREVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

Proudly responding without reading the article since 1998.


;O)


11 posted on 04/14/2005 9:58:34 PM PDT by Petronski (I thank God Almighty for a most remarkable blessing: John Paul the Great.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
Proudly responding without reading the article since 1998.

LOL!

12 posted on 04/14/2005 9:59:57 PM PDT by scott7278 ("Please disperse...there is nothing to see here.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: U S Army EOD
"What a load of FECES"

Check Posts # 9 and 10. Perhaps you are reacting to the very S.F.Chronicle article which Noel is criticizing in his piece. His column is a rebuttal to the pro-Clinton liberal Chronicle writer's apologia for Clinton's failures.

13 posted on 04/14/2005 10:01:07 PM PDT by CHARLITE (Women are powerful; freedom is beautiful.........and STUPID IS FOREVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

Tell your friend Noel Sheppard that I enjoyed this piece, and that I thought the title was clever.

FWIW.


14 posted on 04/14/2005 10:01:41 PM PDT by scott7278 ("Please disperse...there is nothing to see here.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: scott7278
"Tell your friend Noel Sheppard that I enjoyed this piece, and that I thought the title was clever."

Thank you so much. I appreciate the time that you took, Scott, to write such a kind reply. Noel IS very clever. He's as good a writer as he is an excellent economist. Unfortunately, too many people only read the title and/or a few sentences, so if a column is wry, comical, satirical or tongue-in-cheek, people don't get it and then spit all over the writer without actually reading the article.

As the expression goes........."Sheesh!"

Thanks again for your response.

Char :)

15 posted on 04/14/2005 10:08:27 PM PDT by CHARLITE (Women are powerful; freedom is beautiful.........and STUPID IS FOREVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

I guess I am just agreeing with him. Remember what Barney Frank said after we initially ran over Saddom's forces. He claimed the war was succesful because that Bush used the Army Clinton created and trained for him. These people have no shame.


16 posted on 04/14/2005 10:09:00 PM PDT by U S Army EOD (My US Army daughter outshot everybody in her basic training company.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE
Thanks again for your response.

You're very welcome. I'll stand up for my fellow FReepers, though, in saying that they're probably just tired of all of the revisionist spin and assumed that it was just more of the same.

It happens.

17 posted on 04/14/2005 10:29:14 PM PDT by scott7278 ("Please disperse...there is nothing to see here.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: scott7278; U S Army EOD; All; Congressman Billybob

GET A BILL STARTED TO PLACE ALL POLITICIANS ON SOCIAL SECURITY
This must be an issue in "2008 ". Please! Keep it going.


SOCIAL SECURITY:
(This is worth reading. It is short and to the point.)

Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during election years.
Our Senators and Congresswomen do not pay into Social Security and, of course, they do not collect from it.



You see, Social Security benefits were not suitable for persons of their rare elevation in society. They felt they should have a special plan for themselves. So, many years ago they voted in their own benefit plan.
In more recent years, no congressperson has felt the need to change it. After all, it is a great plan.



For all practical purposes their plan works like this:
When they retire, they continue to draw the same pay until they die.
Except it may increase from time to time for cost of living adjustments..
This is calculated on an average life span for each of those two Dignitaries. For example, Senator Byrd and Congressman White and their wives may expect to draw $7,800,000.00 (that's Seven Million, Eight-Hundred Thousand Dollars), with their wives drawing $275,000.00 during the last years of their lives.
Younger Dignitaries, who retire at an early age, will receive much more during the rest of their lives.
Their cost for this excellent plan is $0.00. NADA....ZILCH....



This little perk they voted for themselves is free to them. You and I pick up the tab for this plan. The funds for this fine retirement plan come directly from the General Funds;
"OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK"!



From our own Social Security Plan, which you and I pay (or have paid) into, -every payday until we retire (which amount is matched by our employer)-we can expect to get an average of $1,000 per month after retirement.
Or, in other words, we would have to collect our average of $1,000 monthly benefits for 68 years and one (1) month to equal Senator! Bill Bradley's benefits!
Social Security could be very good if only one small change were made.

That change would be to:
Jerk the Golden Fleece Retirement Plan from under the Senators and Congressmen. Put them into the Social Security plan with the rest of us.
then sit back.....
and watch how fast they would fix it.


If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted

and maybe good changes will evolve.

How many people can YOU send this to?

Better yet.....
How many people WILL you send this to??

Keep this going clear up thru the 2008 election!! We need to be heard!!


18 posted on 04/14/2005 11:07:47 PM PDT by CHARLITE (Women are powerful; freedom is beautiful.........and STUPID IS FOREVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

What a pile of rubbish.

This goes to show just how desperate these Democrats are to get some attention.
Clinton could have avoided the whole scandel if he had only told the truth. How come he never had that foresight?
As it was, he had plenty of time before his dirty laundry was exposed to put a proposal (that he never had) forward.


19 posted on 04/14/2005 11:31:25 PM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE


Even then we knew.

20 posted on 04/16/2005 5:18:31 AM PDT by OESY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

Great read. Almost as good as the responses. If it gets too slow this weekend, I'll have to bump this up a few times.


21 posted on 04/16/2005 5:27:01 AM PDT by bad company (fish tremble at the mention of my name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

How'd ya spell r e v i s i o n i s t?


22 posted on 04/16/2005 5:28:47 AM PDT by litehaus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE
Or, did Social Security become financially solvent the very moment Al Gore lost in 2000?

And the homeless came back out, too.

23 posted on 04/16/2005 5:29:22 AM PDT by Lazamataz (It's a heck of a long time 'till Christmas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary
The "pile of rubbish" is exactly what Noel Sheppard, the author of the piece, is exposing. He is critiqueing the article published in the S.F. Chronicle, which is the revisionist version.

"The most recent such revelation suggests that Mr. Clinton would have reformed Social Security in his second term if he had not been distracted by those dastardly and unnecessary impeachment proceedings. Such are the proclamations in a San Francisco Chronicle front-page story entitled "Social Security rehab died first under Clinton.”

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/04/11/MNGKIC697J1.DTL

Sheppard then goes on to mock and ridicule the liberal female writer's desperate attempt to exonerate Clinton for not having kept his weak, non-substantial campaign and grandstanding promises to reform Social Security.

From your posted comment, I got the impression that you thought that it was the writer of the article (Noel Sheppard) who is the revisionist. He's not. It's the author of the S.F. Chronicle article who is.

24 posted on 04/16/2005 4:06:30 PM PDT by CHARLITE (Women are powerful; freedom is beautiful.........and STUPID IS FOREVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson