Posted on 08/21/2015 9:42:22 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Ending birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants and raising the retirement age for Social Security are two causes Republicans tend to favor more than Democrats. But different groups of Republicans are enthusiastic about each idea: very roughly speaking, the base and the establishment, respectively. (There is, of course, some overlap: Ted Cruz, Lindsey Graham, and Rand Paul are for both ideas.)
These ideas seem to me to have a few things in common. They’re neither necessary nor sufficient to solve the underlying problems with which they are associated (too much illegal immigration and insolvent entitlements); campaigning for them would carry very significant political costs; and they have nonetheless becomes tests of seriousness about the underlying problems.
Raising the retirement age doesn’t have to be done to make Social Security solvent: The growth of benefits for people with high lifetime earnings could instead be moderated. That will have to be done anyway, even if the retirement age is raised. (Obviously, I’m not considering raising it to 100. Then, it’s true, you’d have a nice surplus.) And trying to raise the retirement age opens you up to a potent line of attack–what about the guy who’s had to do backbreaking labor all his life?–that changing the benefits formula wouldn’t. Notice that Paul Krugman, in attacking Republicans this week for being willing to make Social Security solvent, merely mentions the idea of changing the formula and concentrates his fire on the retirement-age proposal.
Merely end birthright citizenship, and there would still be a lot of illegal immigration. To get it down to tolerable levels you’d still have to impose e-verify requirements for new hires, build a border wall or walls, and crack down on visa overstayers; and if you did those things, there would be a lot fewer illegal immigrants with citizen-children. Going after birthright citizenship also puts conservatives on weak ground. Notice how much advocates of liberal immigration policies have wanted to make illegal immigrants’ children the subject all along.
There are of course differences between these ideas. Ending birthright citizenship has done better than raising the retirement age in polls; on the other hand, the bar for getting it done–whether or not the Supreme Court would be right to say it’s constitutionally required, it seems highly likely that it would do so–is much higher. Raising the retirement age would increase incentives to work, not just save money for Social Security. Still and all, neither of these fights seem like the right ones to pick.
More on immigration, and the seeds of a compromise that are hidden–well hidden–in Donald Trump’s plan, here.
That is already done.
Besides, no discussion of SS is complete without the realization that the SS Trust Fund is a fiction; SS is a cash flow program commingled with general funds. Whether there's bookkeeping entries one way or the other to the Trust Fund is irrelevant to the finances of the country, although not the politics.
No kidding.
Still, insisting that the parent of the baby be legally in the country is a pretty low bar. Not even insisting that they be citizens, just here legally. Thats not much to ask.
RE: Besides, no discussion of SS is complete without the realization that the SS Trust Fund is a fiction
Al Gore did that, and was laughed out of town with his repeated mention of the LOCK BOX.
The SS money was robbed and the pyramid is going upside down, so raise the age or expect a 73% payment.
Polls are very clear. The American People are with Trump on immigration.
Unfortunately they are with Bernie Sanders on Social Security. They don’t want it touched. They want benefits increased. They want the EEEEVIL rich to pay for it.
As for raising the retirement age, they have to decide. If the money is mine, its mine. If its not mine, then its charity. Which is it?
If we went back to the original intent of Roosevelts SS scheme we’d need to raise the eligibility age to 76 because that is the current average life expectancy for U.S. males. When SS was begun the average male lifespan in the US was 65 therefore statistically SS would never have to pay out more than it took in.
so it was another scam to "tax" us to "death" just like Obamacare
AL Gore may have been laughed out on the Lock Box issue because he’s Al Gore, and it sounded retarded from the git-go. But, there’s a lot of discourse about how Social Security is OK until some future date. That’s lock box talk. The Trust Fund isn’t filled with marketable securities.. it has IOUs from the Treasury, which are just future taxing claims.
Even when people talk about making SS solvent through higher tax rates, or removing the wage cap, they are still talking about commingled funds.
Retirement age is problematical for Americans who work with their backs. I am 64 in a month and though still in good shape the 200 pound lifts are not like they used to be. I have no plans at all to retire but the insurance people told me that maybe 1% of people who had back surgery similar to mine return to work.I believe it not because the rehab was not successful to a point but because the memory of and constant reminder of intolerable pain was enough to almost dissuade an independent guy like myself from returning to the same kind of work.
As for anchor babies, it is a magnet attracting illegals and needs to be legislated out of existence for unlawful trespassers.
Social Security would be best cut off for those 55 or below. Best of all would be simply giving a one year grace period then ending the whole program altogether along with ending government connections of all types with medicine and insurance, ALL types other than weights and measures (explicit in the Constitution) and truth in advertising (implied by the previous) and sanctity of contract.
It's not easy to say no to Santa Claus and Robin Hood
Raising the retirement age doesn’t have to be done to make Social Security solvent: The growth of benefits for people with high lifetime earnings could instead be moderated. That will have to be done anyway, even if the retirement age is raised. (Obviously, I’m not considering raising it to 100. Then, it’s true, you’d have a nice surplus.) And trying to raise the retirement age opens you up to a potent line of attack–what about the guy who’s had to do backbreaking labor all his life?–that changing the benefits formula wouldn’t. Notice that Paul Krugman, in attacking Republicans this week for being willing to make Social Security solvent, merely mentions the idea of changing the formula and concentrates his fire on the retirement-age proposal.
So Ramesh just wants to means test SS and redistribute benefits. In other words he wants to perpetuate the Ponzi scheme. Why not personal accounts and privatization? Why not reduce benefits or increase taxes or both to make the system solvent?
Merely end birthright citizenship, and there would still be a lot of illegal immigration. To get it down to tolerable levels you’d still have to impose e-verify requirements for new hires, build a border wall or walls, and crack down on visa overstayers; and if you did those things, there would be a lot fewer illegal immigrants with citizen-children. Going after birthright citizenship also puts conservatives on weak ground. Notice how much advocates of liberal immigration policies have wanted to make illegal immigrants’ children the subject all along.
Birthright citizenship is not a minor issue. One out of every 10 children in this country is born to an illegal alien. 300,000 to 400,000 born every year combined with 1.1 million legal permanent immigrants a year and 640,000 guest workers.
They become US citizens eligible for Medicaid, food stamps, housing assistance. etc. When they reach 21 they can sponsor their relatives to join them. At 18 they can sponsor a spouse. These are enormous costs and hurt our social safety net. As it is, 40% of all children born in the US are funded by Medicaid. One third of all children in poverty are children of immigrants, legal and illegal. Our schools and hospitals are being overrun.
They can also vote. Immigrants vote more than two to one Dem.
We can chew gum and walk at the same time. We can have e-verify and track down visa over stayers. We can also pass a law eliminating birthright citizenship. We are only one of two developed countries that still has it.
Anchor babies cost each taxpayer about $20,000 for prenatal and childbirth expenses. Multiply that by the estimated anchor babies in this country.
Not to mention WIC, and the cost of schooling these kids.
End birthright citizenship.
Duh. Hiding behind the skirts of women and children is all they know. The Left is all about emotional appeals (including intimidation, eg the Race Card). They have nothing else. Logic, history, human nature, and reason are not on their side.
National Review IS the GOPe. I can barely stand to read them anymore. And they are supposedly our elite opinion makes.
That's easy. It's not yours. It has never been yours since the government extorted the money from you. The supreme court has already ruled on this.
It's just another form of welfare.
So, Ponnuru outs himself as a RINO on immigration.
The money isn't yours. The money doesn't exist. Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme. You've been defrauded, and the criminal is bankrupt.
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.