Posted on 11/14/2007 5:44:21 PM PST by Josh Painter
Fred Thompson may have started his presidential campaign late, but he is the first candidate in either party to come out with solid plans to reform Social Security and immigration. And while most candidates have called for increasing the size of the military, Thompson laid out a detailed plan to achieve that end in a Tuesday speech at the Citadel Military College. On these issues, Thompson has set a standard for specificity, conservatism, and soundness that we would like to see the other Republican candidates measure up to.
Thompson would borrow the best Democratic idea on Social Security, creating investment accounts outside the Social Security system. Under this plan, each worker would have the option of diverting 2 percent of his wages into a 401(k)-type account, with the government adding $2.50 to every dollar saved. These accounts would make it easier for workers, especially low-income workers, to build up assets of their own.
Thompson has announced that, to keep Social Security solvent, he would slow the growth of benefits. Social Security benefits are currently indexed to wage levels. Since wages are expected to rise, initial benefit levels are too. Thompson wouldn’t tinker with the cost-of-living adjustment (in other words, benefits would still keep up with inflation), nor would his plan affect any current or near retiree (it wouldn’t kick in right away). Instead, Thompson’s plan is to eventually decouple benefits from wage growth. This, he argues, is the most equitable way to keep Social Security from running out of money without imposing a massive tax increase. None of the other Republican candidates has put forward a plan that deals so frankly with the challenges of reforming Social Security.
On immigration, Thompson rejects the notion that we must choose between deporting millions of people and granting them citizenship. The cornerstone of his proposal is a rejection of amnesty — because, as we learned following the 1986 immigration reform, granting legal status to illegal aliens before fully implementing enforcement measures encourages more illegal immigration.
But Thompson doesn’t accept the false assertion that “no amnesty” means we must initiate mass deportations. Instead, he would gradually shrink the illegal population by stepping up enforcement — ending “sanctuary cities” whose governments direct their police departments not to enforce immigration law; cracking down on employers who hire illegal immigrants; and completing a proposed border fence. The other candidates say that they want to fix entitlements and control our borders, but only Thompson has outlined specific, conservative policies.
Thompson’s most recent proposal is a detailed plan to increase the size of the military. Thompson told his Citadel audience that he would spend more on defense, replace worn-down fighting vehicles, and build a “million-member” ground force that would increase the sizes of the Army and Marine Corps to 775,000 and 225,000, respectively. That we need a bigger military has become almost an article of faith among the candidates for president, Democrat and Republican. This is a welcome development; additional detailed proposals like Thompson’s would be even more welcome.
The big news concerning Thompson this week, of course, has been the National Right to Life Committee’s endorsement of his candidacy. Ironically, this is one area of policy where Thompson has not expressed his views clearly. He has stated that he thinks Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, but he hasn’t taken a position on what he thinks the states should do about abortion if and when Roe is overturned.
It’s obvious why conservatives see something to like in Thompson. He has offered clear, conservative ideas on fixing Social Security, policing immigration, and expanding the military. We encourage the other candidates to follow his lead.
...excellent. GO FRed. :)
...excellent. GO FRed. :)
...excellent. GO FRed. :)
Do we conservatives support giving people’s tax money to other people who do what the government requires them to do?
sorry. :( ...triple post.
“At this pace, Thompson would have to be POTUS for the rest of his life. Why not propose something that POTUS can actually do without a Congressional majority? Too lame.”
They said the same thing about FDR, but 20 years latter his party implemented almost everything he fought for. Leaders see past their time. FDT is just here correct the mistakes and follies of the past.
lol....lol....that can’t be the reason!?
Fred is kicking butt and taking names.
He is the ONLY candidate of EITHER party to stomp on the traditional “third rail” of political campaigns, Social Security. And his plan makes sense. Common sense.
Likewise his stance on illegal immigration. It’s reasoned, logical and, most important, DOABLE.
Massive FRed bump!!
Um...
Ok...
I’m quite certain he’s being sarcastic.
Don’t be so sure...
I looked at some of his previous posts, I guess you’re right.
Yup...
The real reason this is important is because it’s coming from NRO, which seemed in the tank for Giuliani.
Yes, I would love to hear, "For English, Press '1'. For Spanish, vaya se a Mexico."
The majority of Presidential candidates’ promises, from both sides, depend on the voters thinking that the President actually has the power to do something once in office. As we adults all know, the power of the Presidency is more persuasive than active.
How proud you must be.
Fred came out against the amnesty deal last summer before he was a candidate.
Good one!
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.