What's Wrong With the Truth?
I don’t read everything Mona Cheran writes, but when I do read her I am always amazed by the depth and clarity of her work. In her latest column, “Did Rick Perry Blow It on Social Security?” I found that she has written much of what has been rattling around in my head for a couple of days but could not express clearly. She takes a rather contrary position from most of the right concerning Rick Perry’s ideas and attitude toward Social Security when she states, “On this issue, Rick Perry is treating voters as adults.” I agree with her whole heartedly. What is so wrong with the truth regarding this cherished, yet completely disastrous, program?
Perry rightly questions the constitutionality of the program. The way it is sold to us, and one of the main arguments against changing or eliminating it, is that people pay into the system and have a right and reason to expect a return. However, one of the primary reasons the SCOTUS found Social Security to be constitutional is that “The proceeds of both taxes [personal and employer] are to be paid into the Treasury like internal revenue taxes generally, and are not earmarked in any way.” (Helvering v. Davis) In other words, it’s just a tax like any other. The government can do anything it wants with the revenue generated by the program, and it routinely has done anything it wants with the money. It cannot be both ways. Either the government is collecting it and reserving it for the individual, or it is just a tax subject to the whims of the Congress. Only one of these options has been declared constitutional.
Another reason Perry is right is that math really isn’t that hard. Anyone who has looked at the data knows that the program is insolvent. The “trust fund” is empty, and monies from general funds are already being paid out by the system. Sure, the government can cash in some of the IOUs it gave itself for the money collected by the system, but the only way to make good on the paper is to either tax more in other areas, borrow more, or print more. None of these is a reasonable option. A saying I heard often in the Navy applies perfectly to the finances of this program: we’re [expletive]ing up at a high rate of speed. Medicare is a bigger part of the problem, but Social Security is not an insignificant factor.
The most significant fault I see in Social Security, however, is its very nature. If the money taken in is not earmarked for those on whose behalf it was taken, then any money received from the program is simply welfare. In the debate Romney said that millions live on Social Security, and Dick Cheney was quoted as saying that it is a program that a great many people depend on. How can any limited government conservative hear those words and not retch? It is not an insurance program. It is a welfare program. Having millions dependent on it is not a reason to save it; rather, it is a reason to kill it, violently. Millions reliant on a government welfare program for their daily existence? In America? How is this program not antithetical to every founding principle of the nation?
Perry is the only adult discussing Social Security, as Mona Cheran points out. It is close enough to a Ponzi scheme to borrow the label. The way it is sold to us is a monstrous lie. It is bankrupting our nation financially. Worse, it has bankrupted our nation ideologically, morally, and spiritually if keeping millions of Americans dependent on this redistributive welfare system is important enough to not even have an honest, adult conversation about it.
- Comment (44)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments:
Dec '10
Re: What's Wrong With the Truth?
The two questions that naturally follow for me are these:
Bringing it up on financial solvency is good but insufficient. All the candidates agree SS is broke. Which candidate best understands the bigger issue and is willing to fight the more important battle?
Cheran ended her piece saying that Perry is the only one treating voters like adults, but I sometimes wonder if the voters are acting like adults. SS has been the third rail precisely because people realize they're getting a good deal, but do they understand or believe it is a morally questionable deal?
May '10
Re: What's Wrong With the Truth?
HVTs: The criticism of Perry here may be terribly short-sighted. Margaret Thatcher once said something to the effect that ‘first you win the argument, then you win votes.’ Romney wants to win votes by avoiding the argument about Social Security. Perry is trying to win the argument. ...
This is a serious political battle and it’s no time to get squeamishly picayune or intellectually masturbatory over word choice. · Sep 10 at 5:20am
I completely agree. I like candor, and Perry is being candid. I applaud him for it. I worry about his apparent fondness of "crony capitalism", but hopefully any real issues will come out early. I hope he keeps talking about it, because if he does he will win the argument.
Which is the point. Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid need to be discussed seriously, not rationalized away with some platitudes about fraud and abuse out of fear of alienating the boomers.
Edited on September 10, 2011 at 4:30pmMay '10
Re: What's Wrong With the Truth?
I COMPLETELY AGREE!
Read the Wikipedia article on Ponzi Scheme, and it is a pretty consistent definition of how Social Security works.
The only real difference is that it doesn't offer unusually high returns! For the current contributors, "returns" will be puny compared to even a savings account.
Social Security needs to return to it's original intended purpose .. a safety net for those disabled or too old to work and without other means of support. Unfortunately, it will take a generation to get us there.
Edited on September 10, 2011 at 4:43pmI like the idea of extending the eligibility age by one month for every year you are below 65, and applying means tests in a similar fashion.
Dec '10
Re: What's Wrong With the Truth?
Scott Reusser:
Now comes Perry, the bull in the china shop, with all his bluster but no reassuring, well-thought-out alternative, to risk undermining the years-in-the-making, real progress made by Ryan and others to move the center in our direction.
I can't disagree with most of what you wrote. However, your position assumes the people are not ready to be adults and are not willing to be better than is required for the good of the nation and themselves. Your description essentially says the cancer is inoperable and the only treatment available is chemo and radiation. I still have a tiny sliver of hope that the American people can and will rise up and refuse to be bought.
Aug '10
Re: What's Wrong With the Truth?
Scott - Don't know if it's any consolation, but there are some of us Boomers that recognize the system is broken and are willing to sacrifice for the sake of our kids and the country.
I would support an immediate change in the SS age to 70+. (And I am 57 - just inside the currently proposed "no change" zone.)
What would also help, if only symbolically, would be to see Congress (particularly the elders who have passed the buck on this for decades) be the first to make the personal sacrifices.
Sadly, so long as there are no repercussions for destroying other people's lives with foolish policy, Congress and their enablers/advisers will never stop their madness.
May '10
Re: What's Wrong With the Truth?
Thanks, Songwriter, and I believe a successful appeal to your generation is possible, but it will take great savvy.
Sep '10
Re: What's Wrong With the Truth?
I'm 58: 5 years before I can start drawing Social Security, 7 year before I can draw a fully vested amount. My suggested solution: change the dates to 68 and 70, respectively. The math should look a lot better.
Scott Reusser: Hope this thread takes off, KP (unlike mine, alas).
I'll stick to my analysis that without an accompanying brave, transformative proposal, Perry's been nothing more than a blowhard -- not an adult, as you say, but a grandstander without the courage of his convictions, since something "monstrous" cannot be fixed with mere tinkering.
So far I've seen no evidence that such bravery will be forthcoming; in fact, the first words out of his mouth were to reassure the demographic and fiscal trainwreck known as the boomers ("those approaching retirement," he said) that they will be exempt from sacrifice. That's fundamentally unserious if he intends to undo the "Ponzi scheme."
So unless things change dramatically (and they might), he's executed precisely the worst possible combo: With much bravado he's insulted the most popular program in American history while simultaneously embracing it. · Sep 9 at 3:11pm
May '10
Re: What's Wrong With the Truth?
The King Prawn
Your description essentially says the cancer is inoperable and the only treatment available is chemo and radiation.
There's an interesting exchange between Paul Rahe and Ryan in that podcast a while back where Rahe asks Ryan something like, "Did you ever consider using this moment to undo the wellfare state entirely?" and Ryan responds (in essence) "Uh, ya, you're preachin' to the choir, man, but I'm doing all I can." Boldness is easy until you're the one who actually has to pull it off.
Re Perry, my bottom line is this: As Rahe said here, "We need to know whether Perry is a statesman -- principled, thoughtful, canny, and ruthless -- or just another hotdog...." Judging by that debate, I judge him to be a hotdog -- great at Stage 1 (grand proclamations) but very little competence, or even preparation, for Stage 2 (an articulate defense of his ideas, depth, etc).
But I sincerely hope I've misjudged him, and it's still very early.
Edited on September 10, 2011 at 6:42pmMay '11
Re: What's Wrong With the Truth?
One problem with focusing on the insolvency of social security is that it distracts us from the more important conversation which is the perverse corruption of our healthcare system by Medicare. That is a much more serious problem.
Dec '10
Re: What's Wrong With the Truth?
Underlying Medicare is the same root corruption: individual dependency on the government. Social Security just happens to be the one causing the flap right now because of Perry's remarks. Of course, Medicare is so screwed up it can't be said that so many wholly dependent on it. There is quite a market for for medigap insurance. There is a program sort of like that for social security. It usually sounds like "Welcome to Walmart."
Jun '11
Re: What's Wrong With the Truth?
On the question of whether telling the truth will hurt Perry, I point to Chris Christy. When he had to confront the state employee unions he stood up and told the truth; that his predecessors had been lying to them for years, telling them that their pension agreements were sustainable and that he (Christy) was the first one to tell them the truth, that, unless changes were made, their pensions wouldn't be there for them when they retired. Now it remains to be seen if Christy can get re-elected so we don't know yet if telling the truth hurt him in that respect, but does anyone think he would have been able to reform the state budget the way he has if he had danced around the pension issue instead of confronting it head on?
May '10
Re: What's Wrong With the Truth?
Note that Christie was very coy pre-election; in fact, he was the moderate Republican in the primary -- a RINO, some said. He's even joked (paraphrasing), "Hey, if I said all this before the election, I never would have won."
But I agree that the post-election Christie is the model for what Perry has forced himself to become: a straight-talker, quick on his feet, quick to smile but able to wipe the floor rhetorically with all comers, etc. Hope he's up to it.
May '10
Re: What's Wrong With the Truth?
One last point, King Prawn, about that Charen piece (which I just now read -- sorry):
She claims there are two kinds of Republicans: win-the-election types who like Romney and change-the-world types who like Perry. But there's a third type that she doesn't mention: ones who long desperately for a change-the-world candidate but have strong doubts about whether one exists in this field.
Jun '11
Re: What's Wrong With the Truth?
Scott Reusser
Note that Christie was very coy pre-election; in fact, he was the moderate Republican in the primary -- a RINO, some said. He's even joked (paraphrasing), "Hey, if I said all this before the election, I never would have won."
· Sep 10 at 2:09pm
Well, I guess Christy is not quite the right example since he didn't start telling it like it is until after he got elected. I stand corrected. Nevertheless, I hope that the Republican nominee, whoever that is, gets elected and then treats the American people like adults. I'm 60 years old and if the President told me I would have to work 10 more years instead of 5 before I could collect Social Security in order to save the country from bankruptcy, I would say it's a very small price to pay. I figure I'm lucky to get SS at all. After all, the historical norm is for people to work until they die.
Aug '10
Re: What's Wrong With the Truth?
Great, great, great savvy, i'm afraid.
Dec '10
Re: What's Wrong With the Truth?
Cheran points out a strategic error in our historic first Islamic apostate president’s brinkmanship during the debt ceiling debacle: “... President Obama attempted to scare seniors by warning that Social Security checks might not go out on time if recalcitrant Republicans continued to refuse to raise taxes. He thus exposed the naked truth — the trust fund is bare and that the checks to current and future beneficiaries depend upon taxes and borrowing.”
In short, Ponzi scheme. Will GOP candidates use to their advantage that admission of financial fraud by the party of FDR who instigated it?
Most members of Congress over the past decades—particularly during the perennial majority held by Democrats—joined the happy band of robber barons who voted to fund their pork projects with the misappropriation of taxes collected for SS. Only newly elected tea party movement members have clean hands and a clear conscious.
If the American electorate pays attention only to issues written on a bumper sticker, then "Ponzi scheme" fits. Water cooler conversation and the internet combined with common sense will leave no one undecided about the need to reform this bankrupt government program. Just say it like it is.
Oct '10
Re: What's Wrong With the Truth?
Scott: In your narrative Perry’s language and demeanor undo a carefully constructed and laboriously implemented grand plan that’s steadily bringing the nation to fiscal responsibility. If only!
The Republican mainstream has been and will continue to be entirely reactive to a groundswell of popular revulsion at the abject failure of America’s political class (both parties!) to govern responsibly. Is Paul Ryan’s sudden prominence within the Republican establishment the result of its secret plan? Forgive the sarcasm, but Puhleeze!
Is it not more likely that after the 2010 midterms the Establishment fears for its political life? It will seek the path of least resistance consistent with retaining power (Rove loves Romney). It will dropkick Ryan and his plan the second it can.
Sweet reason and Conservatism do not rule. They have to be imposed upon those who do rule. And our only weapon is votes. We need politicians who can get voters to vote. Period. Full stop. Perry’s straight talk is more likely to do that than a thousand carefully crafted policy documents from Paul Ryan and the Debt Commission. This is why Perry is drawing so much enemy fire: he’s over the target.
May '10
Re: What's Wrong With the Truth?
Of course not, HVT. It's the result of his tireless and savvy effort to drag the establishment, kicking and screaming, rightward. Is it your position that a blustering Perry-type would have been better able to write, sell, and successfully usher through the House such a plan? Puhleeze, as you say.
I've seen no evidence (so far) of such skill from Perry, or even commitment -- note that back when Gingrich and Gramm and so many others fought like heck to kill the seemingly inevitable Hillarycare, Perry tried only to get in on the action. He's been a "big government conservative" his whole political career, in Andy Ferguson's words, so it seems more likely that this guy rides political waves, unlike Ryan, who tries to build them.
But to Perry's great credit, he's running, and Ryan isn't.
Oct '10
Re: What's Wrong With the Truth?
Scott Reusser: [Replies embedded in bold italics.]
It's the result of his tireless and savvy effort to drag the establishment, kicking and screaming, rightward. [Ryan’s efforts – nice, not sufficient; Tea Party + 87 freshmen Congressmen = critical.] Is it your position that blustering Perry-type would (be) better able to write, sell, usher through House such a plan? [What passed House is footnote; laws ENACTED matter. Who can get votes to capture White House? That answer is ‘my position.’] Seen no evidence (so far) of such skill from Perry [3-term TX Governor, not Capitol Hill journeyman!] ... back when Gingrich and Gramm [and dinosaurs roamed!] … seemingly inevitable Hillarycare, Perry tried [Democrat distraction alert! Perry opposition to Obamacare - relevant; '90s Clinton baggage is not!] … He's been a "big government conservative" [candidate with perfect pedigree that can win would be…?]
But to Perry's great credit, he's running, and Ryan isn't. [That’s the pertinent point!]
Your points are completely valid but in my view primarily apply to ideological or intellectual purity. My view: focus only on winning. What matters is the most conservative person we can get elected, not the candidate most appealing on some other level.
Aug '10
Re: What's Wrong With the Truth?
Hey KP, what do you make of Bachmann going after Perry on this?
Byron York reporting:
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/bachmann-plans-hit-perry-social-security
Unnamed Bachmann staffer:
"She strongly disagrees with his position on that, and it's clearly not something that's going to sit well with the people of Florida and Iowa and South Carolina and many of the early states, where there is a large population of seniors who rely heavily on Social Security. For [Perry] to scare them is wrong."
Sounds more like squishy politics than brave truth telling to me. She is know for the latter not the former, right?
Looks like a case of "desperate times call for squishy measures" if you ask me.
Edited on September 12, 2011 at 5:43am