September 4, 2007

Privatization Never Works: Hillary

Hillary Clinton has an interesting view of the American economy, if her remarks to the AARP serve as any sort of guide. She told its legislative conference that Social Security is the "most successful domestic program" in American history, and that only government can make the necessary decisions for its beneficiaries (via reader Online Analyst):

"This is the most successful domestic program in the history of the United States," Clinton said to applause from seniors gathered in Washington to push their policy agenda. "When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything."

She also said she does not support cutting benefits or increasing the retirement age. Seniors can begin collecting partial benefits at age 62, with full benefits available at age 67 for those born in 1960 or later. Clinton said instead she will protect the program through fiscal responsibility and criticized President Bush's leadership on the issue.

Privatization never works? That certainly explains her approach to health care during her husband's administration. Hillary wanted to nationalize the health care system, apparently believing then that privatization doesn't work and that government should make all choices for its citizens.

Beyond that, Hillary wants to sell Social Security as a problem-free program, despite its upcoming financial collapse. She told the AARP that she will refuse to raise the retirement age, cut benefits, or privatize as noted above. The program's trustees issued a report in April that made clear the deficits Social Security faces:

Has the size of the Social Security problem changed over the last year?

* In net present value terms, Social Security owes $6.8 trillion dollars more in benefits than it will receive in taxes. That number includes $2.0 trillion, in net present value terms, to repay the bonds in Social Security's trust fund. This $300 billion increase is almost 4.5 percent higher than last year's $6.5 trillion number. The 2007 number consists of $2.0 trillion to repay the special issue bonds in the trust fund and $4.8 trillion to pay benefits after the trust fund is exhausted in 2041.

Net present value measures the amount of money that would have to be invested today in order to have enough money on hand to pay deficits in the future. In other words, Congress would have to invest $6.8 trillion today in order to have enough money to pay all of Social Security's promised benefits between 2017 and 2081. This money would be in addition to what Social Security receives during those years from its payroll taxes. ....

* Social Security spending will exceed projected tax collections in 2017. These deficits will quickly balloon to alarming proportions. After adjusting for inflation, annual deficits will reach $67.8 billion in 2020, $266.5 billion in 2030, and $330.9 billion in 2035.

That's the report from the program's trustees. In ten years, the program will tip into the red, and three years after that, the deficits really begin to accelerate. Obviously some action will need to be taken -- and if Hillary takes all of the other options off the table, then the only action left will be massive tax increases to pay for the shortfalls. Somehow she sees increased government confiscation as a better option than allowing people to keep their earnings and make their own decisions about the future.

If we elect a President who truly believes that private choices never work, be prepared for the authoritarianism that will follow.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Privatization Never Works: Hillary:

» Hillary On Social Security: “This is the most successful domestic program in the history of the United States,” from Right Voices
She said that and then some to AARP. Social Security is on the verge of financial collapse, yet Hillary calls it the most successful domestic program. She will take private accounts off the table because you are too stupid to make your own decisions.... [Read More]

Comments (50)

Posted by Stephen Macklin | September 4, 2007 8:45 PM

I think you're looking at this from the wrong angle. The problems for Social Security begin in 2017 but don't start getting really serious until 2020. At best (worst) Clinton can only be President until 2016. She's already passing the problem on to the administration that succeeds her.

Posted by kingronjo | September 4, 2007 8:58 PM

No one, but no one, can ever say if they vote for HRH Hillary that they did not know exactly where she stands. She is an out and out Socialist- at the minimum.

Here the smartest woman in the world proves a total lack of any type of economic sanity stating privatization has never worked. Perhaps she should look at the private sector and compare it to the public in terms of efficiencies, productivity, capital utilization, etc, etc, ad nauseum etc.

The good sense of the American people is the only hope. And it seems that may be in short supply. I've said it before, there are no guarantees that America will overcome its adversaries, especially when approx 50% of the population wont stand up.

Posted by Dusty | September 4, 2007 9:24 PM

Chavez in a pantsuit.

Posted by Nugai | September 4, 2007 9:26 PM

Stephen beat me to it, but I concur. The problems won't occur on her (presumptive) watch, ergo, no problems exist.

Posted by patrick neid | September 4, 2007 9:34 PM

Say what you will about her stupidity, she says all the right things that usually get politicians elected. Free stuff for everyone works most times.

The dirty little secret in U.S. politics is that "progressives=socialism=communism=Stalinist=Marxism, sells. Every major comment coming out of her mouth and Obama's passes the smell test of the linkage just mentioned.

Think how debased as a society we have become where 50% of the population is thinking about returning Bill Clinton to the White House grounds. An accused rapist, a misogynist and charged with impeachment for lying under oath about getting sex from an intern. And that's just for starters.

We're pathetic.

Posted by jaeger51 | September 4, 2007 9:49 PM

Hillary is a true believer in modernity. The modern world is Bizzaro World! where everything is the exact opposite of reality. So it stands to perfect reason that she would believe that privatization never works, and government always done, as that is the complete opposite of reality.

Posted by Hesiod | September 4, 2007 9:56 PM

Unfortunately it's too late to wise up and ammend the Constitution so that you can EITHER vote or have your snout in the trough of goodies, but not both. In short order, the productive classes will be subsumed by the free riders. We have no mechanism to protect ourselves, and Marxists like Hillary know they can get those votes by promising an even better, more luxurious ride, paid for on the backs of the middle classes.

Posted by richard mcenroe | September 4, 2007 10:09 PM

So when Wee Willy Billy blew an artery, he went to state-funded hospital, right?

Posted by MagicalPat | September 4, 2007 10:13 PM

She also claimed in that speech that when her hubby left the White House, social security was solvent for 50 years.

Of course, no one will call her on that.

Posted by KW64 | September 4, 2007 10:17 PM

Politicians usually adopt the safe route to win office and to stay there. That means do not offer any solutions to problems that you will actually have to implement and be held accoutable for the results of. Do promise (in no reporters allowed groups) that you will reward your special interests and do criticize other people's solutions if they actually offer any; but then; if it is a two person race, triangulate about as close their position as you can without actually putting forward a solution you will be expected to enact. Hillary is following this formula to a T and will continue to in the general election.

She will not propose a tax increase to deal with the "problem" during the election or even most likely while in office. The safe politician only makes changes when forced to in a crisis. As suggested, the Social Security deficits will not fall on her watch, but, even if they did, after she is elected this kind of rhetoric will be forgotten if an actual crisis occurred on her watch.

Posted by stackja1945 [TypeKey Profile Page] | September 4, 2007 10:22 PM

FDR created SS to run for a few years. Everyone was supposed to die and not claim SS. Medicos intervened. People now live too long. SS is busted. This secret must not be revealed. HC pretends all is well. HC does not care about BC so we are not supposed to worry. Now all we just need to do is stop worrying and the problem will go away. Trust her. Anyone want to buy a nice bridge in Brooklyn?

Posted by Jack Payne | September 4, 2007 10:41 PM

Say what you will about the social security trust fund, but there is something looming on the sidelines that may well doom the whole system well before 2017. That's the illegal immigrant screw up of the system. With 9,000,000 tax filings yearly under the wrong social security accounts the only direction in which to go is down. I wrote 2 articles on this problem that got wide play across the internet. Just doing the research for these 2 pieces was frightening, in and of itself, regardless of the system funding problems.

Posted by rvastar | September 4, 2007 11:28 PM

Think how debased as a society we have become where 50% of the population is thinking about returning Bill Clinton to the White House grounds. An accused rapist, a misogynist and charged with impeachment for lying under oath about getting sex from an intern. And that's just for starters.

Patrick, you always seem to hit the nail right on the head.

I look around and I see a house of cards that's just waiting to collapse. In 20 years, Medicare and Social Security will take $.50 of every tax dollar. And that's just the two biggest entitlements for now...wait until the ignorant masses fall for universal health care! And it's only gonna get worse after that. I'm not much for conspiracy theories but I'm really beginning to entertain the thought that this may be what's at work here.

Think the frog in the pan of water on the stove. Throw it in a pan of hot water and it jumps right out. But sit it a pan of cool water and turn on the'll sit there until it's boiled to death.

Throw people into your normal leftist/commie "system" and within a generation or two, they're doing everything they can to jump ship. But take a prosperous society and allow leftists to slowly chip away at it's sense of morality and right-from-wrong via the takeover of all the major means of information dispersal (education, media, and entertainment)...destroy any sense of personal responsibility by making every person who's not a white male a member of some victim class in effort to destroy any sense of a cohesive, nation identity...handicap people more and more by chaining them to massive government entitlement programs (Medicare, Social Security, Universal Health care) that eventually they're going to be completely trapped by and unable to escape...what are you left with?

A trap that is being set for the American people. A trap that - once it's sprung - is going to require another American Revolution to break out of.

Our prosperity is simultaneously our greatest asset and our greatest weakness. The thing that your average American loves more than anything else is the comfort and safety of his/her middle class existence...and in another 30-40 years, when the first real cracks begin to appear in edifice of the great middle class illusion of security, they're gonna be willing to do just about anything to maintain the fascade. And that "anything" is going to include endlessly raising taxes and giving away more and more of their independence to the liberal nanny-state that's going to continue to feed them the same bullsh!t about "plans" and "initiatives". That is, unless there's an alternative that can point a different way.

It's why we of the non-liberal stripe - whether that be conservative, libertarian, or just plain smart enough to see the coming train wreck - must stay true to our principles of personal responsibility and limited government. Even if it means relegation to the political wilderness for the next 50 years. And it's why we can't continue to suffer the RINOs in our midst who've become just as bad as the Dems at hoisting more and more government on our backs. We need to stick to our principles and we need to continue to espouse them openly and honestly.

No matter how much lipstick you put on a pig, it's still a pig. Eventually, the bill for the liberal free-for-all is going to come due...and when it does, I really fear that it's going to be nightmarish. But it's going to take Americans of conviction and moral fortitude to lead our country out of that nightmare and it most certainly will not be Democrats.

We're pathetic.

No, we've just allowed ourselves to be taken in by the latest snake-oil salesmen (leftists/liberals)...history is replete with them. But history turns on a dime and you never know what's just around the corner. Keep the faith!

Posted by ck | September 4, 2007 11:59 PM

oh wow --- authoritarianism? LOL

Authoritarianism might be on your mind since our current president is probably the closest thing to it in a long time... Hillary isn't authoritarian, although she's not a good candidate either.

Posted by onlineanalyst | September 5, 2007 1:09 AM

Let's not forget Madame Hillary's 2004 remarks in San Francisco:

"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

That sounds rather authoritarian to me.

This is the same person who rolled her eyes around and shook her head when President Bush in his State of the Union address talked about his efforts to privatize Social Security, efforts which were squelched by Congress.

Hillary Clinton hides in plain sight her socialist schemes to redistribute income in the guise of "caring". Her disdain for the private sector and capitalism is well documented. Her "solution" to all ills, real or imagined, is Big (bureaucratic) Government,where she is the arbiter of the purse and power.

(Thanks for the hat tip acknowledgment, Captain Ed!)

Posted by Cooltom | September 5, 2007 1:14 AM

Geepers. I retire in 2017. Blame it on me. My $1.300 per month will put us over the top. Sorry.

Posted by niccolo | September 5, 2007 1:31 AM

Let's face it: the very first remedy will be a means test. If you have two nickels to rub together when you retire, no SS checks for you. No refunds of the SS taxes you paid all your life either (even when you couldn't really spare it).

Second remedy will be no SS checks for those already retired who have two nickels.

Third will be a "net worth" tax -- already in place in some EU and scandinavian countries.

And you better have two nickels to rub together when you retire, because the fourth and final remedy will be the payment of a lump sum pittance to those on the rolls and termination of the program.

But the "net worth" tax will stay.

Bleak prospect, ain't it?

- Niccolo

Posted by br | September 5, 2007 5:42 AM

I think it's worth spelling out the economic implications of what Clinton is saying. An unreformed Social Security program will still have to be paid for one way or another. That will mean one of two things:

(i) Massive tax increases. Those could be through higher income taxes and SS premiums, which would put most of the burden on the younger, working population, and probably foster inter-generational civil war (the 'throw mama from the train'scenario). Or (a bit more fairly) through big increases in sales and other consumption taxes (which in effect would reduce the real value of SS benefits to the recipients, as well as transferring resources from the young to the old).

(ii) Deficit financing, leading to generalized economic chaos. This could be through the Fed simply printing money, leading to ever accelerating inflation (a so-called inflation tax). Or it could be through ever-larger borrowing from abroad. But foreigners would be increasingly unwilling to lend for an evidently unsustainable scheme like social security, leading to much higher interest rates and a collapse in the dollar (also leading to accelerating inflation).

People who care about the economic future of the country should really hammer Clinton on these unavoidable consequences of her cynical and irresponsible stand on social security.

Posted by docjim505 | September 5, 2007 5:51 AM

It amazes me that our political class - nay, our people - are too stupid too see this train wreck looming on the horizon. I guess 2017 is just too far down the road to worry about it.


Dunno if you're being facetious, but you've identified a piece of the problem. Yeah, your $1300 per month isn't going to break the budget. However, when there are perhaps 50 million CoolTom's out there, each expecting his check (and voting for politicians who promise to make it bigger), then we've got a problem. This also overlooks the fact that our "efficient" government has huge overhead costs. I seem to recall hearing once that, of every dollar paid into SS, only about $0.28 actually goes out as benefits; the rest is eaten up by the bureaucracy.

Now consider that there are politicians who want to buy Hispanic votes by giving SS benefits to illegal aliens who've never even paid into the system.

Now add in free prescription drugs.

Etc, etc, etc.

Since at least the 1960s, Americans have had the idea that they can vote themselves a living. Eventually, however, the check has to be paid.


I'm waiting for the Congress to start going after the billions that Americans have in their IRA's and 401k's. "You don't need that much money to retire..."

Posted by the fly-man | September 5, 2007 5:53 AM

We had a Congress in party with the White House for 6 years and did absolutely nothing related to privatization of Social Security, after promising votes for reform. We currently have the most authoritarian government in our country's history, so now your calling Mrs. Clinton authoritarian based on her large government as the solution policies? How unbelievably disingenuous, ahh but you'll will never admit that you're absolutely shameless in your loyalty to Dear Leader. SIX YEARS AND NOT SQUAT, RINSE AND REPEAT, SIX YEARS AND NOT SQUAT. Goes for immigration reform. You shameless bastards.

Posted by Terrye | September 5, 2007 6:13 AM

People do want to keep the Social Security system intact, that is just a fact. If you want to lose an election, go after Social Security. That too is a fact.

But why just blame the liberals? George Bush tried to bring some semblance of market forces and restraint to bear in the system and the Right did not exactly fall all over themselves supporting those reforms. Lukewarm would be the best analysis of their reaction.

They whined when he created a Drug Prescription Program on the grounds that he was a big spender but they said nary a word about taking on the AARP when they ran attack ads against Bush's reform plans. They treated him a like a traitor when he came out in favor of a guest worker program, but when the opportunity presented itself to shut down the Senate switchboard in favor of Social Security reform.....they were missing in action.

So why just blame people like Clinton? She is only saying what people want to hear.

Posted by Donna | September 5, 2007 6:29 AM

" In net present value terms, Social Security owes $6.8 trillion dollars more in benefits than it will receive in taxes. That number includes $2.0 trillion, in net present value terms, to repay the bonds in Social Security's trust fund."

This sentence is deceptive. It is not the Social Security system that needs to repay those bonds. It is the deficit spending U.S. government which needs to repay those bonds to the Social Security trust fund. The contract made during Reagan's presidency between wage-earners [who were to pay double ss taxes to assure solvency] and the system was broken when the federal government chose to take those extra solvency-solving trust monies to pay for other programs, all the while hiding a true accounting of deficit spending, and all the while never budgeting to repay what was 'borrowed'.

Posted by jerry: | September 5, 2007 6:41 AM

I get a real kick out of our leftwing correspondents. When ever Captain Ed or any poster points some wacko left wing authoritarian welfare plan our socialist brothers drag out "the most authoritarian adminstration in American history meme faster then you can say "Duke Lacrosse Tema."

Whether it's vote fraud or political thuggary you can count on ck or some other troll to scream Bush did it while the only ones to go jail for it are Democrats.

Posted by Jeff | September 5, 2007 6:52 AM

Public employees in Galveston, Texas voted to opt out of Social Security 25 years ago, and put their money in private retirement accounts instead.

It worked.

Posted by Artie Curtis | September 5, 2007 6:53 AM

Are you ready for some socialism? With Hillary as president and a democratic majority in Congress that's what we'll have.
And remember, Bill himself said a few years ago well, we could give your money back to you but what if you dont use it wisely. I think the implication is clear - government that is, the Clintons, know how better to use your money than you do. And there are plenty of people in this country that are ok with that.

Posted by hermie | September 5, 2007 6:59 AM

Hillary promises no cuts in benefits, no raising of the retirement age; but she seems to have 'forgotten' about telling us just how she'll keep it solvent. BTW, wasn't it the Dems, including Hillary, when President Bush tried to get his pilot program for SS reform passed, claimed that the system was fine and there was no crisis?

But that's just Hillary...never being able to recall what she said and did in the past. Eight years in the White House but she can't recall a single thing that happened, but she 'knows' that when Bill was President that it was all just peachy.

Hillary's 'solution' will be simple: Raising taxes. Of course, it will only be on the 'rich'. But the goalposts for the definition of 'rich' keep shifting; depending on what group she talks to. Now, the Dems always like to talk about the 'top 1 percent' (except themselves); but they fail to show how this income level can be the sole provider of funds for the multi-billion dollar gap in the Social Security system.

Posted by Artie Curtis | September 5, 2007 7:01 AM

I have an elderly aunt. We were discussing SS sometime ago and I her SS would be going broke in a few years. Her response - so what? I'll be long gone by then. Well, I asked, what about the young people like her nephews and nieces in their 20's who wont have SS. Her response - Just as long as I have mine. They'll have to figure out how to get theirs. She also believes Bush's tax cuts came out of SS funds.
I'm not saying all seniors are like this - after all, she's just a crazy money grubbing old woman. But I think that mindset is somewhat prevalent.

Posted by Contrarian_Libertarian | September 5, 2007 7:03 AM

And, ironically, it was her husband who was the first president to publicly suggest the partial privatization of Social Security.

Doesn't anybody remember the "USA Accounts" mentioned in his State of the Union speech of (I believe) 1999?

Needless to say, nothing became of it -- not even with a Republican Congress. But it's worth remembering now that she's pandering, once again, against her own history.

Posted by the fly-man | September 5, 2007 7:16 AM

Certainly it's my opinion that we are currently under the most authoritarian regime I use the secrecy of the VP office to stretch the AUMF into what ever fits the need, BUT. Tell me that the opportunity to reform Social Security was available and then squandered under the GOP's control of the White House and Congress FOR SIX Years, is not an accurate statement? You can moan and groan, mutter your Marxists labels of Mrs. Clinton and her party, but YOUR party was the one who sat back, did nothing and now are just critics. Critics of policy that can be implemented.Not just sit on the stove and smell good, but no one HAD the balls to serve it. The GOP, head pavers on the road to Hell. Again, you're all shameless bastards.

Posted by jerry | September 5, 2007 7:42 AM

Fly Man said: "Certainly it's my opinion that we are currently under the most authoritarian regime I use the secrecy of the VP office to stretch the AUMF into what ever fits the need..."

Fly Man, ask Clement Vandingham if he thinks how his detention without charge and trial, and his expulsion from the United States took place in a less authoritarian administration then this one. OK, you can't ask him, he's dead.

So let's try the Wilson Administration during the WWI. Ever hear of the Palmer Raids? Then there is the Roosevelt Demonstration during WWII. I am sure you have heard of the actual suspension of Habeas Corpus for American citizens of Japanese descent and the execution by authority of secret military tribunal of German unlawful combatants. Let's not forget press censorship that took place during he war.

Authoritarianism has nothing to do with the secrecy of the Vice President's office. Authoritarianism is about the suppression of dissent and civil liberties. So far the only evidence of this comes from within the Democratic Party and its ideological allies in the culture.

You, like every leftist, merely project your own authoritarianism on others so as to give you an excuse to create an authoritarian society.

Posted by Steve | September 5, 2007 7:51 AM

[quote]Obviously some action will need to be taken -- and if Hillary takes all of the other options off the table, then the only action left will be massive tax increases to pay for the shortfalls.[/quote]

Hillary won't have to do anything. Assuming she's elected in the first place, and re-elected after her first term, she's out of office in 2016, and effectively off the hook. The SS problem will belong to her successor, along with the blame for raising taxes, reducing benefits, and increasing the retirement age.

Posted by Jim | September 5, 2007 8:32 AM

FlyMan: "Tell me that the opportunity to reform Social Security was available and then squandered under the GOP's control of the White House and Congress FOR SIX Years, is not an accurate statement."

It is certainly an accurate statement. Gutless, cowardly, pandering RINOs. Disgusting. Behaved like a bunch of...DEMOCRATS. Oh, by the way, did you notice they're the minority party again? Hmmm, I wonder why. Could it be because that most of them are just Demo-Lite's instead of true conservatives, deserving of the label "Republican." Yeah, there was a lot of disappointment in those six years.

But now, this "shameless bastard" has a question for you, a$$wipe - (hey you started the namecalling,on this thread, and nobody else): What does the RINO party's cowardly failures (which conservatives on this site have repeatedly bemoaned) have anything to do with whether Hilary is an authoritarian Socialist, who will make the RINO pandering to AARP look like child's play, and who, as others have pointed out, will simply kick the ball down the road for her successors.

At least W, for all his other very numerous failings, had the guts to RAISE the issue and float the IDEA of finding some sort of solution, sooner, rather than later. Tell me THAT is not an accurate statement. YOUR party, chock full of shameless pandering bastards, TRASHED Bush up one side and down the other, and was unwilling to even DISCUSS any reform. The very concept of DISCUSSION of the problem was OFF the table as far as YOUR party was concerned, and so Bush and the cowardly Repubs, rolled right over and turned tail and ran for cover....rather than cramming much needed reforms, including privatization, down your unwilling, Marxist bastard throats. A pity indeed.

Posted by MarkD | September 5, 2007 8:37 AM

Lincoln was the most authoritarian president by far. Habeus corpus was suspended. There was no Constitutional authority to prevent secession. I guess they don't teach history to the fly-man's generation.

On topic, this taking from the productive to give to the mob isn't working too well in Kenya, and Venezuela is starting its downward trend. It is going to get ugly, and I feel sorry for my kids.

Posted by viking01 | September 5, 2007 8:42 AM

The Hillary / Communist solution to the Social Security shortfall will be easy.

They'll simply raise the retirement age to a thousand years. Nobody qualifies. Problem solved.

Posted by FedUp | September 5, 2007 9:41 AM

SS is just another example of why the government should not be in charge of programs involving money!!! Congress borrows against it and never repays it. So, let's either privatize it OR designate all the pork that the congressional piggies want to dole out to go back to SS.

Do you think that reform would happen quicker if Congress had to subsist on SS rather than their cushy pensions??

Posted by onlineanalyst | September 5, 2007 9:41 AM

Another memory-hole lapse about the time President Bush was floating possible solutions to the coming crisis with Social Security is that the Dems, along with their fellow-enablers in the AARP, planted the downright lie that current recipients would have their benefits reduced.

A little research shows that canard for the fear-mongering among seniors that it was intended to do. Bush made it clear that those already receiving benefits would not be affected through his plan. The option for beginning partially private accounts (with a better rate of return) was to be open to younger workers. The plan also had a safety net, albeit a lower retirement entitlement, to cover the contingency of market volatility.

Unfortunately, unless something is addressed soon in funding SS, the smaller cadre of young workers today will be taxed to the hilt, unable to provide for their own retirements. Self-centered-greed, economic ignorance, and disinformation are mortgaging the economic independence of future generations.

Make no mistake: Hillary Clinton and her fellow travelers who represent Democrat thinking (Talk about oxymorons!), are determined to devalue, if not destroy, the private sector.

Posted by MikeD | September 5, 2007 9:51 AM

Nice comment flyman. Did you have to work at being unable to express a coherent thought or is functional illiteracy an inherited trait? Your ignorance stands as a monument to why Hillary may actually be elected.

Posted by unclesmrgol | September 5, 2007 9:51 AM

Social Security was dead at birth, but the only way Roosevelt could have sold it was the way it is set up -- you don't pay for your future care; instead, you pay for your parents' and grandparents' immediate care. That way, the grandparents, who never paid a dime into the program, could be covered.

Of course, the program assumed that wages keep rising and that there are more people able to pay into the system with each passing generation. Both of those assumptions are false, as we are now discovering to our regret. Or, rather, have known for at least 30 years of inaction; but Congress can be excused for not acting -- they have their own well-funded retirement play completely separate from Social Security.

We (or, rather, the Democrats) have saddled our kids with an ill-conceived plan which pays for more parents than there are kids to cover the payments. If our kids are the selfish louts they seem to be (and, I submit, need to be), this isn't going to happen. With that thought in mind I'm not counting on social security for my retirement; it makes tough living now, but at least I won't be out on the street later (I hope).

Posted by viking01 | September 5, 2007 10:30 AM

Social Security like most government entitlements scams is a Ponzi scheme to keep the bureaucratic pigs flying at the expense of each successive litter. It's a mandatory, interest free loan to the government for as long as one can labor. The gamble is / was based upon (given the blue collar life span at the time in 1935) of the potential recipients dying long before becoming eligible. It is simply a matter of time before the average life span in retirement begins to exceed the amount of life span expended toward labor. The quick fix was to increase the retirement age of an increasingly white collar labor force. The long term fix Hillary and others are pondering is to reduce life span by forcing the adoption of poor quality socialized medicine and socialist population control for their abortion industry contributors such as abortion brokerage Planned Parenthood. Sorry granny but your Social Security warranty has expired and you are deemed a burden to the State. One poster's analogy to "Logan's Run" the other day was well stated. Your mandatory gummint checkup won't be so much for your benefit as to determine how many years of usefulness to the State versus how many years of burden to the State each comrade, I mean citizen, has left. Congratulations, with socialized medicine your life span can now be regulated by Washington, DC. Comforting thought.

I agree that the socialists along with AARP did their best to scuttle the President's push for Social Security reform. Unfortunately, so did the Three Stooges Frist, Hastert and Lott (among others) too busy country clubbing and socializing to appear as genuine alternatives to Beltway business as usual. Despite the fact that Frist, for all practical purposes, quit, he, Hastert and Lott were removed from their positions of responsibility for having exercised none.

Posted by Tim K | September 5, 2007 10:31 AM

Excellent post as usual. I'm reading Amity Schlaes' history of the Depression -- The Forgotten Man -- and just came across an amazing admission by FDR about the sustainability of Social Security. According to Frances Perkins, his Secretary of Labor, when the Social Security legislation was being considered, FDR said: "Ah, but this is the same old dole another name. It is almost dishonest to build up an accumulated deficit for the Congress of the United States to meet in 1980. We can't do that. We can't see the United States short in 1980 any more than in 1935."

When will the American public face up to the reality of the unsustainability of the present system? I suspect that it will only happen once the pain of doing something about it has become almost unbearable.

Posted by Tim W | September 5, 2007 10:47 AM

Hillery is doing just what her scumbag husband did. She says she will only raise taxes for the rich but when in office she will raise them for everyone. If she is not going to raise the retirement age or cut benefits, the only solution is to raise taxes. For anyone making over 100K, if Clinton is elected your screwed as your taxes will go up massively. She is a true hardcore socailist who belives government is the answer to all problems.

At least Bush tried to reform Social Security. It may have been an ill conceived plan but Bush had the balls to go up against the most dishonest shameless lobbying group in the AARP. My father would get letters weekly stating that his benefits would be immeadiately cut and that Bush was intentionally trying to destroy the system. I have never seen such dishonest crap than what was in the AARP letters. I would tell him that the letters were untrue and he would get irate saying that Bush was trying to steal his money. Its no wonder Bush's poll numbers went in the crapper right around the time he tried to reform SS as the AARP and its members are selfish dishonest greedy bastards who care nothing about the future of this country.


Please put down the bong and go read some history as you obviously need an education.

Posted by Joselito | September 5, 2007 10:56 AM

Hey Fly Man, here is the solution. One (1) single 6 year term for every elected office in the Federal Government. One (1) office held per lifetime. I think that we would be shocked, shocked I tell you, with what could be done, what could be cleaned up, and what corrupt officeholders we could delete from the payroll. What is the difference between the two parties?

When Hillary tells us that she is going to take some things away from people who have worked for them, why should we not believe her?

Posted by always right | September 5, 2007 3:40 PM

In one of the Bush's State of the Union speeches (sorry, no link), Bush mentioned his failed attempt to address the Social Security problem via "privatization" as an option, does anybody here remember the reaction?

The audience was the Congress (divided into two blocks, separated by the center aisle). Every Democrat stood up, clapping their hands, cheering, and celebrating Bush's "failure". I remember seeing the camera panning to Hillary's smug smile and clapping hands.

Any smart Repub candidate will run the footage over and over again.

Posted by Amendment X | September 5, 2007 6:17 PM

Alas, if those figures were only true.
Dr. Walter E. Williams, economics professor at George Mason University, calculates the unfunded liability to be $65-71,000,000,000,000 ( data is two years old)( ). And each year adds $4,650,000,000,000 to Soc Sec and Medicare (with Medicare taking $4,000,000,000,000 each year). All in present value dollars. Meaning that Congress would need to put away, today, now, $79,000,000,000,000 to cover the accounts.
Soc Sec can not be saved or repaired. Period!
It can only be ended.
As I've blogged before, that if any one of us ran a program based on the Social security and Medicare model, we would go to prison...and rightfully so.
And it's happened:

Posted by NoDonkey | September 5, 2007 8:39 PM

What absolutely doesn't work in America is Democrat politicians.

Including this shrieking, stupid gasbag.

The woman has never held an actual job in her life.

Posted by Sharpshooter | September 6, 2007 3:13 AM

Think that's bad, wait until the baby-boomers on the FEDERAL PENSION systems retire.

Guess who's first in line at the trough.

Can you say "USA Going Out of Business Sale"? Sure you can.

Posted by the fly-man | September 6, 2007 6:56 AM

Bubbblllbubblll, pwhhhhh, ahhh. That Was a great hit. Note to all. The point is very clear to me. The fact that many of you are terrified that Mrs. Clinton would Leninize the government is based on the fact that the Democrats would lock step vote for it. This is compared to the Noble gestures, please make hand stroking gesture to accompany, The President made and his own party wouldn't touch it. I noticed that in my history lecture above you all forgot to mention a specific bill that Dear Leader has signed. I'm sure that was a consideration from a conservative view point. You know, propose something Steve Forbesish, all the while knowing Congress wouldn't have the votes to support it. Win-Win for the Pres. but the citizenry and their kids and grand kids take the hit. Again, if the GOP can't enact legislation that is SOOOOO Critical to their base, while controlling all 3 branches of government,t then your the ones that need to put down the bong pipe of dreams. BTW,

Posted by GaryS | September 11, 2007 7:16 AM

Good article last week covering the problems with Social Security on Author was concise. Shows "how successful" it really is.

Posted by Mark | September 20, 2007 4:28 PM

I am tired of politicians with no balls. When Bush raised the issue during his State of the Union speech and the dems cheered, he should have deviated from his speech and excoriated them for trusting government more than people. Of course, he doesn't really have the rhetorical ability to do that. Hopefully someone arises that does.

Post a comment