Perry on Social Security: They also said Reagan was too blunt

Washington Examiner ^ | September 10, 2011 | Mark Tapscott

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Texas Gov. Rick Perry has gotten all kinds of grief from the smartest guys in the room crowd in New York and Washington for calling Social Security “a Ponzi Scheme,” and “a monstrous lie to our kids.”

I can’t think of a more fitting place to demonstrate a Reaganesque honesty than the Reagan Library, with former First Lady Nancy Reagan looking on benignly as a couple of her crisply-coiffed Liberal Mainstream Media friends do their best to discredit the heirs to her husband’s political legacy.

Reagan himself often spoke just as bluntly about liberalism’s many sacred cows, and he invariably got the same sort of outraged responses from the smartest guys in the room crowd.

Like when he said “government isn’t the solution, government is the problem.” They were scandalized when he called the Soviet Union an “evil empire,” too. And who can forget “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.” Some of his own advisors were aghast that he was going to say that one.

Now Perry is getting the business from the same crowd. And it started with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney – who knows a thing or two about appealing to the smartest guys.

“Our nominee has to be someone who isn't committed to abolishing Social Security, but who is committed to saving Social Security,” Romney chirped in response to Perry.

Of course Perry did NOT say he wanted to "abolish" Social Security, he simply called it what it is. It’s a classic Ponzi Scheme because money from the last investors must be used to pay the first investors. The fact Social Security is compulsory while a Ponzi Scheme is voluntary is beside the point.

And it’s a monstrous lie to tell anybody under age 50 because everybody knows and has known for decades that the Ponzi Scheme’s days are numbered by the reality that too few new workers are paying into the system to fund payments to current and projected beneficiaries.

You’ve heard of being “upside down” on a car loan? That’s when you keep trading in for a new model before paying off the old one. You transfer the outstanding balance on the old loan to the new loan. That’s just the way Social Security “works.”

Like Reagan said in 1964, the only thing that “saves” Social Security is that Washington can always raise taxes.

Except that it can’t. Only three workers pay in to Social Security now for every one beneficiary. The day is coming soon when it will only be two workers. Can you say “ruinous taxation?”

And that’s why Perry is way ahead of the smartest guys in the crowd on this issue.

Sure, the politically shrewd thing to say is to we have to “save” Social Security. It reassures the old folks without threatening the younger workers who must pay the taxes that fund the benefits.

What the smartest guys in the room crowd apparently missed is that Perry also said this:

“And people who are on Social Security today, men and women who are receiving those benefits today, are individuals at my age that are in line pretty quick to get them, they don't need to worry about anything. But I think the Republican candidates are talking about ways to transition this program …”

Perry appears to understand something Reagan knew very well: The smartest guys in the room crowd are slaves to conventional liberal wisdom and they are out-of-touch with the values and views of most Americans.

Our political elites in New York and Washington are far more attuned to that conventional wisdom than to everyday Americans. If you don’t grasp that fact, you will never understand why three-fourths of the voters trust the people more than professional politicians.

And that is why Perry’s candor may well prove to be his greatest asset in the months ahead.

[SoJoCo]

You don’t abolish it when people are living on it and some are about to enter the program that was forced on them and they’re near retirement.

Any other abject failures that Perry wants to keep around?

You transition to something that isn’t unsustainable and run by the Federal government. 30-40 year-olds know it won’t be there (their parents and grandparents know it and want to see their family members out of this financial trap that will not be there for them).

There in lies the problem. You say transition to something that isn't run by the federal government. You already have that - 401Ks, IRAs, basic savings accounts. But if your plan is a required contribution retirement program not run by the federal government then that's likely unconstitutional. In either case, how do you fund Social Security for those on it or those almost on it while allowing those not on it to drop out?

I appreciate that you might be interested in this but if your only point for coming on Perry threads is to be negative and ball up the thread, please go somewhere else.

I want some indication that Perry isn't all hat and no cattle. I keep hoping to find it but have been pretty disappointed to date.

[SoJoCo]

Describing it accurately while at the same time being unwilling to withdraw the promises made to seniors by the federal government seems to be a political concept too complex for you to grasp.

Describing something as criminal fraud and an abject failure while also claiming you don't want to end it seems to fall under Einstein's definition of insanity.

[upsdriver]

Perry on Social Security: They also said Reagan was too blunt

It's a streeeetch to see how this article backs up the title.

The GOP establishment elite has so bastardized the "era of Reagan" that it's become almost irrelevant.

SO...... I dub these times the Era of Palin! :p

[the invisib1e hand]

Idunno...my gut tells me it's too early to play the "Reagan" card.

Better get advice about that, sir.

[no dems]

OK. HERE'S THE BOTTOM LINE: Rick did not do well in his first Debate Wednesday night. It's still early but I say, if he doesn't do well in the other Debates in September, he might be "gone". I, as were the people in the Frank Luntz Focus Group on Hannity the other night, was disappointed in Perry's Debate Performance. He was not "forceful" and assertive. He seemed, as so many people have said, unprepared for that Debate. Like I say, if he doesn't do better by the end of this month (September), people are going to take a second look at Bachmann, Gingrich, Cain and Santorum. That will be enough to divide the Conservative vote and propel Mittens back into "front-runner" status until the field is winnowed out some. Come on Rick; get your stuff together.

[Grey Eagle]

Frankly, I did not think he did poorly at all. He had a target on his back by those two so called moderators. He is flat spoken and usually speaks softly. Don’t under estimate him. You will get surprised every time. The others you mentioned that were in the debate simply can not beat Obama. Perry can and do it without a teleprompter. He may be off to a slow start. After all, TX is really burning and Obama will not issue a state of emergency. This along with the Feds coming in, and stating they were taking over the fire fighting. They grounded a bunch of the tanker planes and sent away a lot of volunteers who were there to fire the fires, which are still burning heavily. Obama is playing politics with this one.