Mitt Romney (GOP Candidates Debate, Tampa, FL, 9/12/11):
“I put in my book a series of proposals on how to get [Social Security] on sound financial footing so that our kids could count on it, not just our current seniors. But the real question is: Does Governor Perry continue to believe that Social Security should not be a federal program, that it’s unconstitutional and it should be returned to the states? Or is he going to retreat from that view?”
● Is Perry’s position on Social Security what he wrote in Fed Up!?
Perry, In Fed Up!: “Social Security is something that we’ve been forced to accept for more than 70 years now … at the expense of respect for the Constitution and limited government.” (Rick Perry, Fed Up!, 2010, p. 50)
Perry: “By any measure, Social Security is a failure.” (Rick Perry, Fed Up, 2010, p. 62)
● Is it what he said on his book tour last year?
Perry: “Get it back to the states. Why is the federal government even in the pension program…? Let the states do it.”
PERRY: “When you look at Social Security, it’s broke. … Get it back to the states. Why is the federal government even in the pension program or the health care delivery program? Let the states do it. … That, I will suggest to you, is one of the ways this federal government can get out of our business, save a lot of money and get back to that Constitutional way of doing business in those enumerated powers that they’re supposed to have.” (MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” 11/5/10)
Perry: “Let the states … run the pensions.”
PERRY: “There’s a number of things in that book that will strike Americans as horrifying. And we must, as a people, get put back in the box. Get this government back to the limited form that our founding fathers sought. Let the states, whether it is how to run Medicaid, how to run the pensions.” (FOX’s “On The Record With Greta Van Susteren,” 11/8/10)
Perry called Social Security a program “THAT WE DON’T NEED.”
PERRY: “I think every program needs to stand the sunshine of righteous scrutiny. Whether it’s Social Security, whether it’s Medicaid, whether it’s Medicare. You’ve got $115 trillion worth of unfunded liability in those three. … And I think we should have a legitimate, honest, national discussion about Washington’s continuing to spend money we don’t have on programs that we don’t need.” (Andrew Romano, “Rick Perry On The Record,” The Daily Beast, 8/12/11)
● Now, he’s changed his mind? Here’s his latest opinion:
On September 12, 2011, Perry wrote that “America’s goal must be to fix Social Security” so Americans “really can count on [it] for the long haul.”
“America’s goal must be to fix Social Security by making it more financially sound and sustainable for the long term. … Americans must come together and agree to address the problems so today’s beneficiaries and tomorrow’s retirees really can count on Social Security for the long haul.”(Rick Perry, Op-Ed, “I Am Going To Be Honest With The American People,” USA Today, 9/12/11)
Now, that’s a switch…
► Jayde Wyatt
I don’t deny that Social Security is a mess. If you do some of the math, the amount of Social Security taxes that we pay as individuals would only cover about six years of benefits if the money were kept in a “trust” that didn’t earn interest. The knee-jerk reaction is that the federal government should find a way to make that money earn interest.
The problem with that idea is that interest is supposed to be what money earns when that money is lent to a profit-making venture. The government shouldn’t be a profit-making venture. The government’s only means of bringing in money is through taxes, and we don’t want the government taking taxes to make a profit. The government could make interest on the money in the Social Security fund if the government invested that money in profit-making ventures, but that would mean that the government would be choosing which profit-making ventures get that infusion of capital. That kind of system would offer even more opportunity for “crony capitalism” abuses.
There is no easy answer to the problem, and many of us are uncomfortable with the blanket assurance that no current retiree will lose a dime of expected benefit. I understand Mr. Romney’s comment that we can’t say what Rick Perry says because we will lose the senior vote and because scaring seniors unnecessarily is cruel. At the same time, I agree with Governor Perry that Social Security’s promises to the younger generation are becoming a “monstrous lie.” Young people are going to pay a great deal of money into the system and will likely never get a benefit.
Rick Perry’s big problem with this issue is not that everything he’s said is necessarily wrong or that he’s “flip-flopped” more than any other politician. Rick Perry’s problem is that he comes across as a guy who isn’t capable of understanding or dealing with any issue except by posturing. In the first video, he cites Bobby Jindal, governor of Louisiana, as being someone who could come up with some innovative solutions to these kinds of issues. Bobby Jindal is a sharp guy. I’ve voted for Bobby Jindal. Rick Perry, you’re no Bobby Jindal. If we thought that Bobby Jindal had time to be governor of Louisiana and be puppet master pulling Perry’s strings if Perry were president, we’d all feel much better about the Perry candidacy.
I’m not entirely comfortable with everything that Mitt Romney has said about the issue, but I have confidence that Mr. Romney can see all sides of the issue. I believe that Mr. Romney is a good man who will try to weigh all sides and find a solution that will be as fair as possible to everyone. After years of Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, both of whom I like, some conservatives make the mistake of believing that a real conservative must be bombastic. That perception is fueling the Rick Perry campaign. Everyone else in this country is looking for someone who will understand problems on a deeper level and look for serious solutions. With every debate, Mitt Romney shows himself to be that man.
The social security fund earns interest like any other savings account. When we are talking about trillions, the interest adds up.