Perry's Campaign Against the New Deal

Town Hall ^ | 9/1/2011 | Michael Gerson

[rob777]

It is an ideological milestone that the emerging Republican front-runner is as skeptical of the New Deal as anyone in his position since the New Deal. During the 1936 election, Republican nominee Alf Landon called Social Security "unjust, unworkable, stupidly drafted and wastefully financed." Now, according to Texas Gov. Rick Perry, Social Security is a "Ponzi scheme" that tells young workers a "monstrous lie." It is a "failure" that "we have been forced to accept for more than 70 years now."

It is true that Barry Goldwater, during the 1964 campaign, said, "I think Social Security ought to be voluntary." But when his rival Nelson Rockefeller claimed this would be a "personal disaster to millions of senior citizens," Mr. Conservative backed down. Challenged on his proposal, Goldwater responded, "I don't know where you ever got the idea."

It is true that Ronald Reagan, during his 1976 campaign for president, contended, "Fascism was really the basis for the New Deal." But Reagan's presidency was an extended accommodation with the New Deal. Reagan used the economic crisis of his time -- inflation and economic stagnation -- not to repeal entitlements but to lower tax rates. Social Security spending rose dramatically during the Reagan years.

[rob777]

"But there is a third possibility that Perry skeptics should take seriously. Perhaps this ideological moment is just different, in the same way the 1930s or the 1980s were different. Another dip into recession -- a continuing, sputtering failure of the American job-creation machine -- might do more than call three years of Obama policies into question. It might call seven decades of accumulating entitlement commitments into question. Can a modern economy remain energetic and competitive when it transfers increasing amounts from the private to the public sector, from young to old, from the productive to the retired? Will America need to break decisively from the European social model to avoid Europe's economic fate?"


I am a Bachmann supporter, but if Perry can pull this off, he is my man.

[Opinionated Blowhard]

I realize its not the case with this article, but most articles that talk about Perry trying to roll back the New Deal and questioning Social Security are supposed to scare off voters and sink him. They are having exactly the opposite effect with me.

[org.whodat]

You are not serious about reform when you start out name calling, everyone know what social security is, how are you going to fix it and protect those who depend upon it. Otherwise, the people on social security will kick your ass at election time. There is a reason they call it the third rail.

[Bigun]

Perry is against the “New Deal” and I’m for Rick Perry!

[fluffdaddy]

And they'll have exactly the opposite effect on every voter who has a clue about our current situation. Social Security has to change along with the rest of the welfare state, fundamentally. Either we recognize that in 2012 and start making the necessary changes or we sink. Perry gets it. No other serious presidential candidate does.

Maybe the clueless will be numerous enough to reelect Obama. If so, buy some arable land in a place with a long growing season, stockpile ammunition and watch society come unglued. We have to turn away from the New Freedom, the New Deal and the Great Society. If we don't we have no future, it's as simple as that.

[cuban leaf]

I agree. That is why you make changes only to those who it will not impact for the forseeable future. What about an increase in the eligibility age by one year, every three years, until it hits 70.

What cracks me up about the whole thing is that when social security was first established, the eligibility age was 65 and the average lifespan in this country was less than that. Imagine the average lifespan increasing to 100 and social security still set at 65. 8->

[cuban leaf]

I think a good way to curb social security is to pare it down to just monthly income for those who paid into it as a “retirement” plan. Sadly, for many it is the only retirement plan they have, and they paid a LOT into it.

All other benefits could be phased out in a relatively short time span. (20 years, max).

[org.whodat]

How about we kick off reform by cutting the number of employees in congress by 40%: and then cut the total size of government by a like number. After that people will accept social security reform.

[cuban leaf]

That would be a nice start.

[GraceG]

The Big Difference between FDR and BHO....

Even though it was still a net loss in terms of money, at least in many areas of the midwest you can see tree shelter belts that were planted by the CCC in the 1930’s.

I have yet to see one Solyndra Solar Panel and yet to know anyone else who has seen one either.

I have yet to see any real result from the “stimulus” in terms of actually repairing our crumbling infrastructure.

At least FDR was smart enough to do “shovel ready” projects that were noticable to the general public. I admit FDR didn’t have the “headwind” of the “entitlement mentality” that pervades our culture today.

FDR was at least smart enough to put a “attack dog” by the name of Harry Truman to investigate government contracts that were being blatantly gamed. Obama just has socialist cronies like Cass Sustein who look the other way when being ripped off by Solyndra becasue the money is no doubt being funneled back to the DNC in one manner or another.

BHO, Dumber than FDR.