This week from Rasmussen:
Republicans hold a 10-point edge when it comes to voter trust on Social Security-related issues, 46% to 36%, up from a virtual tie last month.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/trust_on_issues
That has to be pretty disturbing to Democratic strategists. If their Party is not even trusted to defend their most cherished and celebrated legislative achievement, what can they win on?
But it also raises the question of why? Republicans are not known as fans of big government social programs, and Social Security is the biggest of them all. Why would voters trust Republicans more than Democrats on this of all things?
And what should Republicans do with this trust? Should we fritter it away because of our ideological predisposition against programs of this sort?
I would like to propose that conservatives and Republicans instead capitalize on this voter trust and step up to defend not these programs as a whole, or even in concept, but the benefits that have been earned by those who currently rely on them.
In their inception, Social Security and Medicare are not welfare programs. They are government-mandated retirement and health insurance programs. In my opinion, the contract that has been created between those who paid into those programs and the federal government should be considered as sacrosanct as any other contract. People worked their whole lives to earn, and the federal government owes, the benefits that they now enjoy.
The starting point for any proposed reform of these programs should be to make good on that contract. We should fulfill the promises made to current beneficiaries, and guarantee that every cent that has been taken out of the trust funds for the two programs to pay for other federal expenses will be paid back in full, with interest. Neither of these trust funds is upside down from an accounting perspective at present, and neither will be in the short-term. There is no reason that current beneficiaries cannot enjoy the benefits that they have earned.
It is in fact the Democrats who have been perfectly willing to raid these trust funds for all manner of government waste, inefficiency, and patronage. They have, as always, taken the money from those who have earned it and given it to those who have not. But the prommissary notes (T-bills) are still there, signifying that they must pay that money back. Now they don’t want to, and they are looking for a way out of that obligation so that they can continue with their profligate ways. We should not give it to them. We should demand that those notes be paid in full, exactly as promised.
Now, with respect to those who are under the age of 65 and are not currently enjoying benefits, I think it’s fair to put some things on the table: privatization and personalization; changes in promised benefits to reflect actuarial realities; elimination of unearned benefits. All of that should be fair game.
But please, can we agree out the outset that we will respect the obligation that the nation has toward those who have earned their benefits. Although a government-enforced social program such as Social Security can never really be called conservative, respecting the sanctity of contract, the value of work and earnings, and the fulfillment of obligations are, to me, very much part of the conservative ideal.
Moe Lane
PG DeFreese
Victoria Coates
Daniel Horowitz
Dan Spencer
No. And speaking as one who is close to being
mbecker908 (Diary) Sunday, January 23rd at 8:46AM EST (link)eligible for both, cut ‘em now.
1. Raise the retirement age to 72.
2. Raise the eligibility for Medicare to 72.
3. Eliminate Part D (thanks GWB) right now.
4. Eliminate the COLA.
Fully privatize both for all at – pick an age. No choice of private or “public” plan.
While we’re at it, eliminate federal guarantees of private retirement plans and pass legislation letting states and municipalities that they’re on their own.
With all due respect
Scope (Diary) Sunday, January 23rd at 10:36AM EST (link)this sounds to me like you already have your answer, and are simply trying to come up with a convincing enough argument to back it up.
Your first mistake is calling SS and/or Medicare a contract is incorrect. The Supreme Court, in 1960, in Flemming v Nestor, decided that “entitlement to SS benefits is not a contractural right.” Therefore your argument that the conservatives should honor the program as a contract falls short.
You, and the rest of us having been paying “taxes”, not SS “insurance premiums.” You’ve been lied to and mislead. Just as we were told during the Obamacare debate that the fees charged to those that do not purchase medical insurance was a “fee” or a “penalty”, they cannot argue that case in court, because the President and the legislature does not have the power to levy any penalities or “fees” against the citizens for not purchasing something. Likewise, they also didn’t have the power back in the 30′s to require anyone to purchase government mandated old age insurance. They had to avoid the word tax, as Obama made the promise of not instituting any new taxes on those earning under a certain number, and, if the penalty was called a tax, he would have been caught in yet another lie. Not like he cares mind you. The Liberals were avoiding the word “tax” at all costs. Yet now, in court they have switched gears and are trying to argue that what they claimed was a penalty is really a tax. SS was unconstitutional when it passed, and, it remains unconstitutional to this day. So I ask, how conservative is that?
I am unaware of any Republican plan for SS and/or Medicare reform efforts that would immediately cut anyone off that is currently collecting those benefits. It appears that you are one of them, and that you have bought into the Liberal scare tactics that the elderly will have to eat dog food, and sleep under the nearest bridge. It’s sad that so many of the elderly fall prey to the Liberals lies.
We may agree more than disagree
georgeinla (Diary) Sunday, January 23rd at 2:12PM EST (link)Of course, I don’t think that SS is a literal contract. I’m using the term in a more general sense. I don’t think anyone on any side is talking about “immediately” cutting anyone off of anything (though I suppose Obamacare’s cuts to Medicare are fairly imminent). What I’m talking about is staking out a place within the debate over the future of these two programs that acknowledges that, rightly or wrongly, people believe that they have worked hard and earned the benefits that they now enjoy.
Yes, the nomenclature of “premiums” is a fiction to mask the reality that they are taxes, but those taxes are still, for accounting purposes, considered as a distinct “fund” within the federal budget, and monies that are taken out of that fund are taken out in the form of Treasury notes that legally do have to be paid back. That is a contract in every sense of the word.
If the people have been “lied to” about Social Security, it was Democrats who lied to them. Why should Republicans now participate in reneging on the promise that Democrats made to those people, all so Democrats can use that money for whatever else they want to do. Keeping the federal government to those promises means more money going to individuals who have earned it, and less money being available for patronage and welfare programs for those who have not.
I don’t believe that Republicans want the elderly to eat cat food, and, according to the poll I cited, most people don’t either. I think people believe that Democrats want to use that money for more of their out of control spending programs, and Republicans might be willing to prevent them from doing so. And I think they are probably right.
Hi. I am a moby Greenie lawyer from Los Angeles who was not nearly smart enough to hide my tracks. Please assess my opinions accordingly.