Posted on 09/10/2011 5:52:02 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Washington — A growing divide over Social Security splits the two leading contenders for the Republican presidential nomination, and the differences between Texas Gov. Rick Perry and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney foreshadow a tricky political dance with older voters.
Romney has seized on what he perceives as Perry’s vulnerability on a program that seniors hold dear, Democrats venerate as sacrosanct and Perry has labeled a “Ponzi scheme.”
That sets up a battle for older voters in Iowa, retirees in Florida and the Sun Belt, and Baby Boomers everywhere worried about their own recession-scarred retirement plans.
“If we nominate someone who the Democrats could correctly characterize as being against Social Security, we would be obliterated as a party,” Romney said on Sean Hannity’s radio program Thursday.
Perry is unyielding.
At a Friday fundraiser in California, Perry stood by his criticism of Social Security and his position that the program is best left to states to administer — a non-starter for many, including some Republicans.
“For people who are on Social Security now, like my folks, and people who are approaching Social Security, like me, it’s going to be there,” he said.
But, he said, he didn’t know at what point age-eligibility will have to be raised because the funds simply aren’t there.
“Anybody that’s for the status quo with Social Security today is involved with a monstrous lie to our kids, and it’s not right,” he said earlier this week during a debate.
An aging population has put a heavy burden on the Social Security Trust Fund: too few workers are paying for the benefits of a growing number of retirees. In 1950, there were 16 workers paying into the fund for each recipient. Last year, that ratio fell to three workers for every recipient. Left unaddressed, cuts in benefits would be forced in 2037.
But any talk of cutting benefits comes with political risk.
“Governor Perry’s immediate challenge is to knock down the hanging perception being driven that he wants to get rid of Social Security,” said Rich Killion, a Republican strategist who worked on Romney’s 2008 presidential bid and advised former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s bid this year.
The Romney-Perry spat comes as the contest for the Republican nomination begins to flare. With three formal debates and a handful of forums this month, the campaign to challenge President Barack Obama has taken on urgency as voters return from their summer vacations and start to pay attention to politics.
Since Perry joined the race last month, Romney has seen his lead fade, driving him to focus his aggressive criticism on Perry instead of looking ahead to a general campaign against Obama.
“The governor says look, states ought to be able to opt out of Social Security. Our nominee has to be someone who isn’t committed to abolishing Social Security, but who is committed to saving Social Security,” Romney said, sharing the stage with his rival.
An AP-GfK poll in May found that 70 percent of Americans consider Social Security deeply important to their financial security in retirement. Just 6 percent said it was “not at all” important.
Yet the public is split on the likelihood Social Security will be there for them: 35 percent say it is extremely or very likely to provide income their entire retirement, 30 percent somewhat likely and 35 percent not too or not at all likely.
It’s that uncertainty that both campaigns hope to tap.
“I know Florida certainly has an interest in Social Security given the large number of seniors we have here,” said John Thrasher, a Republican state senator and former state GOP chairman who backs Romney.
“It’s not whether it’s a Ponzi scheme or not. These are retired people who are pretty intelligent. They want Social Security to be maintained. And they understand there are problems that need to be fixed. There is an opportunity to fix Social Security so it’s a continued benefit for people who are getting it now and those who will get it in the future.”
This is huge. It's about all most of us will have left to give after this disastrous 4 years ends.
Friendly amendment. ;>)
The only conflict is with Mittens and himself. In his book he writes that the Social Security System is a Criminal Enterprise. And on stage he tries to defend it. As usual, Mittens has not seen a position on any issue he will not take if it polls well for him at the moment.Mitt Romney will now be given 30 seconds to rebut himself.
Got it, he basically said the same thing
Remember, also, that the Congress and all government employees are exempted from the Social Security system. They will get their “Rolls Royce” pensions, even if Social Security goes bankrupt.
>> Friendly amendment. ;>)
No prob! I heartily endorse the change. :-) Thx
Members of Congress aren’t on SS like mere mortals. Oh, no... they have their own wonderfully generous plan. Exactly because SS would be pocket change to them.
I’d like to know if the Congressional pension plan froze payts when SS did (2 years ago?) or did they continue to increase? Their benes should be slashed to bring them into conformance with SS. Same with all public employees. THEN you will see them work out a viable SS program not only for now but for the distant future.
They could start fixing SS by eliminating alcoholics and drug addicts as “handicapped” to enable their tapping into SS through SSI. How many know that those folks who choose to enter the alcoholic or druggie lifestyle come under the ‘handicapped’ umbrella and are therefore eligible for SSI benefits that truly handicapped people are too often denied and have to spend years challenging? SSI is a program that has to be cleaned up.
As for the debate itself, Perry won flat out. It was The Rick Perry Show, also featuring Mitt Romney as a polished articulate wonk. Rick Santorum wore a pink tie, Ron Paul conformed to his crazy uncle in the attic role, Gingrich pontificated as the elder statesman-advisor he's morphing into, Bachmann was a wallflower, Huntsman an idiot Warmist, and Herman Cain had a great proposal that the audience cheered:
"I propose my 9-9-9 plan: a straight 9% corporate tax, 9% personal income tax, and 9% federal sales tax. If 10% is good enough for God, 9% is good enough for the federal government."
Perry came off immensely real and likeable. His energy and personality dominated. He didn't back down, he double-downed on Social Security being a Ponzi scheme, "a monstrous lie" to young people. He made fun of Warmism, comparing climate realists to Galileo (and thus "consensus science" to geocentrism). And he drove the audience ecstatic with his response to FM propagandist Brian Williams' question over the 234 death row executions under his governorship:
Williams: "Have you struggled to sleep at night with the idea that any one of those might have been innocent?"
Perry: "No sir, I've never struggled with that at all. In the state of Texas, if you come into our state and you kill one of our children, you kill a police officer, you're involved with another crime and you kill one of our citizens, you will face the ultimate justice in the state of Texas, and that is you will be executed."
Williams was scandalized, and especially by the audience cheering. So he asked Perry what he made of it. Perry shrugged, smiled knowingly, and answered: "I think Americans understand justice."
I don’t think Perry best serves himself saying “leave it to the states” per se - simply relocating from one state to another would make such an idea problematic.
Instead, I think a private accounts system (Chilean style or like Galveston County’s system) is the way to go. Now, one could argue that each state maintains the administration of them, and relocating simply would mean transferring the maintenance in the same way you can switch financial consultants but keep your funds, but I think he needs to clarify this. Or - the state you were born in (or that your SSN was granted in) could always hold the maintenance of your own account.
Perry’s on to something - a lot of people, even older ones on Social Security (well, those informed and intelligent enough to know what’s going on) know that Social Security is set up to fail the way it’s done now.
Whether you call it “saving” Social Security or “revamping” it, we’re arguing semantics. What people are concerned about is:
1. If I get SS, will I keep getting it?
2. If I’m younger, will something be there for me when I retire without a tax rate of 60% to support it?
Simplify it. Perry should state that Romney’s (and others’) unwillingness to address the problem means he’ll likely just give more of the same, and kick the can down the road for our kids to take care of, instead of creating a solution now.
The MSM is (((((((((spinning))))))))) themselves silly.
We have to pull back from all this Federal control and take it local again.
I don’t know about an immaginary account but we sure as hell paid into something and now at the end you want us to just go away...it ain’t gona happen.
There are some ignorant post-65 voters out there, but they were ignorant before they turned 65.
If you think the government is into manipulating and managing the financial system of the US now, just wait until we have government mandated investment accounts for everyone.
Gee, here I thought this site was about returning to a Constitutional governmental level, not reshuffling the unconstitutional.
Tell many of those same FReepers that those IOU’s are worth nothing but the paper that they are written on.
Perry and his team did exactly what they intended to do. Ever since the debate what has everyone been talking about? Perry, Ponzi Scheme...Perry won the soundbite war.
Few people realize the fascist moderator goon squad fell right into Perry's trap and so did Mittens. They were set up. This is how Perry and is team campaign...and we will certainly be excited to continue to watch that poor Texas farm boy the genius.
You paid an income tax into the United States Treasury. That's it, nothing more. No different than those who may have paid income tax at one time and now draw food stamps.
That's how the initial law's text that started SS reads and that's how two Supreme Court cases have ruled - one right when it started in the 30s and one in the 60s.
Sorry if you believed any politicians lies that said otherwise. You should have read the law and those SC cases instead.
Did you notice the “Me too!” chorus to the Bernake money printing question!? (didn’t have to ask Perry — EVERYONE knew he’d denounced it and that Bernake did NOT announce QE in Jackson Hole (how appropriate — money pit, black hole....)
SS is a ponzi scheme and must have changes in order to survive.
The way to make it not a Ponzi scheme is to float the retirement age annually to maintain annual solvency. Then, even current and young future worker will be guaranteed to receive a benefit, subject to an uncertain retirement date that rises with the life expectancy.
We “Social Security Eligible” individuals are perfectly capable of understanding the truth.
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.