When a presidential candidate is asked about an issue they tout, while appearing on a national forum, and they reply with “let’s have a conversation” (as Rick Perry did on Social Security at the last presidential debate) what does that mean? That they have hyped a problem and are short on solutions? Do they want to ‘test the waters’ before figuring out a plan?
Tonight’s presidential debate in Orlando, Florida, is the perfect setting to ask Rick Perry for details on his stance on Social Security.
From MittRomney.com:
In advance of Thursday’s debate in Orlando, the Romney for President campaign released a series of questions for Governor Rick Perry about his proposal to “let the states [decide] how to run the pensions.” Questions about Perry’s proposal to return Social Security to the states have so far gone unanswered.
“This election is about choices and voters – and voters will have the opportunity to choose between Mitt Romney, who wants to fix and strengthen Social Security for the next generation, and Rick Perry, who wants to dismantle it. Voters are now learning more about Rick Perry’s position on Social Security and find it troubling that he has refused to answer questions on what the Social Security program would look like at the state level, as Rick Perry suggests. Governor Perry has the opportunity to clarify his proposal while he is in Florida – a state with an extraordinarily high number of retirees and near retirees,” said Gail Gitcho, Romney Communications Director.
(emphasis added)
Six Questions for Rick Perry on Returning Social Security to the States
1. Constitutionality: Perry has asserted that a federally run Social Security program is unconstitutional. If this remains his position, it suggests that the program must be devolved to the states notwithstanding the advisability of such an approach. The first question in understanding Perry’s approach must be whether he believes there is no choice but to devolve or, alternatively, if he believes it is the right policy solution.
2. Unfunded Liabilities: Devolving the program to the states does not address underlying fiscal challenges. Where a single program once faced possible insolvency, there would now be fifty. How would Perry suggest a state such as Texas address this challenge? Should it raise taxes, reduce benefits, or pursue other types of reform?
3. Trust Fund Accounting: What would happen to the Trust Fund that accrued while the system was in surplus? Interest payments from the fund and draw-down on the principal are crucial funding streams for the national system that are unavailable to the states. How would those funds be equitably allocated to the states?
4. Mobility: How would a state-by-state system accommodate the enormous number of Americans who move across state lines during their lives, and especially as retirement nears? Would each state be responsible for supporting its current disabled and elderly population on its current payroll? Would funds paid into the system in one state follow a resident to another state later in life?
5. State Obligations: Would states be free to forego a pension program altogether? If so, what if any provision would be made for the disabled and elderly in that state? Or would they be expected to move to other states with more generous benefits, inevitably overwhelming those systems?
6. Administration: Would individuals retain national Social Security numbers or would each state administer its own system? Would individuals have any guarantee that commitments made during their working life are honored in retirement? Who would pay for the added expense associated with administering fifty programs instead of one?
Perry wrote in his book Fed UP! that social security is unconstitutional. So, is Perry going to support a program he believes is unconstitutional? I hope Mitt zings him on this.
Mitt Romney Rules Out Rick Perry’s Idea Of Moving Social Security To States – Sept 21, 2011
WASHINGTON — Mitt Romney’s campaign said Wednesday it has ruled out the idea, floated by fellow Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry, of moving Social Security to the state level.
“We reject turning the program over to the states,” Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom told The Huffington Post in an email.
► Jayde Wyatt
UPDATE from MittRomney.com
HOW MANY WAYS CAN RICK PERRY BE WRONG ON SOCIAL SECURITY?
“I Haven’t Backed Off Anything In My Book. So Read The Book Again And Get It Right.” (Los Angeles Times, 8/29/11)
Latest Edition:
· Perry Says Republicans Agree Social Security Is “Wrong.” PERRY: “Republicans have identified that Social Security is wrong.” (Fox News’ “Hannity,” 9/21/11)
Previous Editions:
· “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.” (MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” 11/5/10)
· “At The Expense Of Respect For The Constitution…” PERRY: “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)
· A Program “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)
· “A Failure…” PERRY: “By any measure, Social Security is a failure.” (Rick Perry, Fed Up, 2010, p. 62)
· “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)
The latest attacks from Perry seem to be that Romney is too liberal and too much like Obama. Didn’t Rick Perry used to be a Democrat and worked to try and get Al Gore to be President? Why doesn’t anyone bring that up in response to his attacks on Romney. Seems that would put him in his place.
SS–Unlike Perry you do not believe in throwing the baby out with the bathwater but to fix it and you NOW HOW unlike the Obama White House. You are NOT Obama Light–You know MORE about ECONOMICS than Obama and Perry and their camps combined.
I do not trust Perry–He came to SC to announce–what was wrong with his hometown in TX?
Not all SC can be deceived!
He had tried the TX Legislature and they tuned him down on the shots–deceived in last debate.
Your integrity–unlike all the other candidates, Good Lord look at Gingerich and his affairs and Perry’s Hillarycare but bnngs up the state controlled Romneycare all the time. How deceiving on his real motives. He is really a “former Dem” and not a converted Republican. He will say anything to get votes and get elected. If he is the nominee, he wll be the world’s laughing stock–worse than Palin. I will hang my head.
Takes credit for TX no income tax, right to work and all the oil industries in TX but took the stimulus to hire gov’t jobs in the overall total!! Will they lose their jobs when there is no stimulus in later years to pay their wages?
I am a S. Baptist but admire your integrity to not forsake you religion to “just” be president in 2008. I have researched–Mormons are similar to R. Catholics and 7th Day Adventist–all believe in the same God and Jesus and His deity and atonement but have added writings and traditions in addition to the bible for their way to salvation. Jews don’t even believe in Jesus. THIS IS AMERICA!! Founding Fathers would not give a religious test—be PATROTIC which you are.
You are experienced in negotiating the “deal” in business so I believe you would be great getting American back to an “exceptional” status world-wide.
After J. Carter we needed Reagan to restore our faith and love of America. We NEED that now!
Reagan flip-flopped on abortion and other things–people forget but I was a history teacher! I loved him, though. PERRY flip-flopped on SS from first debate–now wants to save it or give it to the states–what a disaster–could not be transferred, etc. like our pension funds can’t now. Good luck–my prayers and support are with you. NN
1. Constitutionality: Perry has asserted that a federally run Social Security program is unconstitutional. If this remains his position, it suggests that the program must be devolved to the states notwithstanding the advisability of such an approach. The first question in understanding Perry’s approach must be whether he believes there is no choice but to devolve or, alternatively, if he believes it is the right policy solution.
No, it is not constitutional. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Also, this is not a question…
2. Unfunded Liabilities: Devolving the program to the states does not address underlying fiscal challenges. Where a single program once faced possible insolvency, there would now be fifty. How would Perry suggest a state such as Texas address this challenge? Should it raise taxes, reduce benefits, or pursue other types of reform?
Yes, Texas will have to choose one of those policy options. I would imagine they would choose to reduce benefits, and California will choose to raise taxes. That’s how the whole ‘laboratory of democracy’ thing works.
3. Trust Fund Accounting: What would happen to the Trust Fund that accrued while the system was in surplus? Interest payments from the fund and draw-down on the principal are crucial funding streams for the national system that are unavailable to the states. How would those funds be equitably allocated to the states?
There is no surplus, there is no surplus, there is no surplus. I suppose we can distribute the piggy bank full of IOU’s equally by population, indexed by age.
4. Mobility: How would a state-by-state system accommodate the enormous number of Americans who move across state lines during their lives, and especially as retirement nears? Would each state be responsible for supporting its current disabled and elderly population on its current payroll? Would funds paid into the system in one state follow a resident to another state later in life?
Yes. We can roll 401(k)’s between employers, we can roll Perry’s new ‘SS retirement account’ funds between states.
5. State Obligations: Would states be free to forego a pension program altogether? If so, what if any provision would be made for the disabled and elderly in that state? Or would they be expected to move to other states with more generous benefits, inevitably overwhelming those systems?
Yes, that would be up to each state, and if a state is dumb enough to explicitly say they will give money to people who haven’t paid into the system, then they will go bankrupt, and deserve it.
6. Administration: Would individuals retain national Social Security numbers or would each state administer its own system? Would individuals have any guarantee that commitments made during their working life are honored in retirement? Who would pay for the added expense associated with administering fifty programs instead of one?
Yes, just as much as they do now, and a portion of money paid into the system will go for administration, and states will compete on this aspect of the system as well.
Posted by BooMushro