For the second time in several weeks, Gov. Perry called Social Security a Ponzi scheme. Although, beyond his hyperbole rhetoric, Gov. Perry has not offered any plan of his own — either an alternative or improvement to the existing programs. Neither has he explained what will happen to millions of elderly Americans who depend on these two programs if both are dismantled, as he suggested.
Gov. Perry is not unknown for his fiery rhetoric. In 2009, he made a similar comment in a different context. He threatened that Texas could secede from the Union. In Austin, Texas, at a Tea Party rally, Gov. Perry made a statement that, “When we came into the nation in 1845, we were a republic, we were a standalone nation and one of the deals was, we can leave anytime we want. So we’re kind of thinking about that again.”
Later, he dismissed this as a joke.
Are we to believe the man who threatens to secede from the Union and takes every opportunity to talk about dismantling the system that has provided millions of middle class and poor elderly Americans a safety net is the right person to lead this great nation at a time of such uncertainty?
Perry comes from a long line of southern leaders who seem to be fighting the Civil War 146 years after it ended. While the first Civil War was fought in a name of a state’s right to maintain and expand slavery, the new version of this war is being waged with the intent of dismantling government power by dismantling the programs that define the government.
The Social Security system was created in 1935 by President Franklin D. Roosevelt during the first Great Depression as a pension plan for millions of elderly Americans. Since its creation, hundreds of millions of people have come to rely on this program as their only income after retirement.
Medicare was created in 1965 by President Lyndon B. Johnson as a national health insurance program for the elderly Americans.
The intent of creating both programs was the same: To provide a safety net to the elderly by helping maintain their fiscal and physical well-being. Both programs are as popular today as motherhood and apple pie.
It’s true that both Social Security and Medicare will be face a serious challenge in not-so-distant future, as the cost to render the services exceeds the revenue collected to support these programs.
Therefore, there is no question the programs need correction.
But as somber as the problem may be, it’s not beyond repair. And, certainly, abolishing the system as suggested by Gov. Perry is not the answer. The right course of action is for Congress to find a workable solution, as proposed by President Obama, so that the program stays healthy well into the future for generations to come.
No programs or system, either created by the government or business, can work forever without some changes. That’s why, in the business world, processes are evaluated and changed to maximize efficiency. This is called process improvement.
Government also must evaluate its processes frequently, especially high-value programs like Social Security and Medicare, and correct areas that need improvement. But that can only happen in a divided government if there is a sense of urgency on the both sides of the aisle and if both make an earnest effort to resolve the problem.
Republicans need to tone down their over-sensitized rhetoric and accept the fact that Social Security and Medicare are not going anywhere, and Democrats need to understand that both programs may not go on forever without changes.
At the end of the day, there are not two Americas and we are not in war with each other. Sink or swim, we are in it together.
• Roger Adhikari is a Tracy resident who works as a finance and management consultant, currently in Dublin.
Which brings us to be watchful of what is coming, as indicated by MHarold--with so many people on the take from fed, state, and local government, there will be a popular drive to keep up that money flow from government, no matter how extreme the taxation and from whomever it can be forcibly taken.
The truth is, we have all been living WAY beyond our means in this country for a long time, as individuals, as government, as businesses. The balance sheets tell the tale. The debt problem is so extensive there is no remedy other than a mass write-off, a mass default. Think that one through carefully. That is what is coming. More taxes will not stop it.
Taxes represent moneys taken from corporations and rich folks that they will not have available for investment, which results in jobs for the rest of us. The moneys taken in taxes are then given to other rich people or corporations who have lobbied to get it. This spectacle means that there is no way to discern what is actually needed by people. It is pure rent-seeking.
MH:
"However, in order for government to be effective, it needs money. That's why we need taxes." The government already taxes a great deal, does it not? Let them live within their means, just as we do.
MH:
"GOP wants to give tax break to the rich and spend money on defense, Democrats want to see the poors and working class Americans are protected."
Has Obama spent LESS than Bush on defense? oh, I see, MORE! How many jobs has Obama protected? Oh, I see, a net loss of how many MILLIONS of jobs? Increasing taxes on business won't generate jobs.
The man is an absolute fool.
btw, I don't drink the kool aid the Democrats or the Republicans sell.
Therefore they rather spend money on, healthcare, education and human development.
Problem solved. And the POTUS can even get re-elected, until folks put 2 and 2 back together again. Kinda reminds me of Solyndra. The liberals said that was a great idea too. Solyndra is now bankrupt. An recent article said it was because they could not get customers after taking government money.
We need to stop this raise the taxes BS and come up with a solution to get jobs. Apparently we do not know how to do that in DC.
Honestly, people quickly forget that the POTUS said just a few weeks ago that the TOP PRIORITY was jobs. After Solyndra went bankrupt. Suddenly it's taxes again. And the liberals never saw any of that coming. I hate to say I told you so. But they wont listen and so now they are off on their next quest to raise taxes. The fun never stops.
Finally, this isn't a geographical south vs. the north problem. It is a fundamental finance issue where we need to stop raising taxes and learn to create jobs.
What Perry is saying is simple. We used to be able to creat jobs in this country until we replaced innovation a ponzi scheme.
I'm not a Republican, but for a liberal to say the Republicans don't care, just goes to prove this article is all wrong. At least it proves the lines are not drawn geographically.
Hope that helps.
Now then, this bright idea of raising the taxes of the rich sounds good, but what does it get you. Services for the middle class because the middle class are the most affected by the recession. So, we raise the taxes on the rich. It is the Robin Hood mentality. Steal from the rich and give to the poor. Sure it will get past the voters because the majority of them are middle class who think they will benefit from it.
But let's say you are one of the unforunate Americans who only make a million dollars per year, and then suddenly are told that you will pay ten thousand more dollars per year. What can you do?
Easy. MHarold almost eluded to the solution when he said "the rich are laughing to the bank".
The answer is to put your money in an overseas bank account.
continued...
First. Measure E is a moot point because the voters approved it. Not congress. That means we voted for and approved it. We didn't elect someone else who approved it. We did that ourselves. I did it for a reason. A very good reason. And the reason I voted for the 1/2 cent sales tax is to pay the salaries of police officers. And the reason I wanted to keep police officers employed in Tracy is two fold.
First crime is going down everywhere in the USA, except Stockton. And Stockton's crime spills over to other nearby cities. If we allow transient crime to take over our city it would chase businesses away.
Second our tax rate is lower than other cities. And the impact on the average citizen is less than people visiting from other cities where taxes are higher.
That's the local taxation issue. Now, compare that with the federal taxation issue.
continued....
Either you don't care about the fact or don't know, otherwise you wouldn't be giving your (assuming you're working class American because your are talking about food and transportation)example when talking about the tax hike. Obama has never said anything about raising taxes of working class Americans.
Peppermint, no one is happy to pay more taxes, including liberal like me.
However, in order for government to be effective, it needs money. That's why we need taxes. The argument is all about spending, taxes and priority; to whom to tax, where to spend. While GOP wants to give tax break to the rich and spend money on deffense, Democrats want to see the poors and working class Americans are protected. Therefore they rather spend money on, healthcare, education and human development.
Many of you republicans, who are no more rich than rest of us, are hurting yourself by taking right wing republican position that is harmful to your own interest. Rich are laughing through the bank because of the suckers like you.
It sounds so easy, so harmless, "just raise taxes".
What it is, in reality, is "let's take more money from ertion, don't really care that HE needs it for food, for transport, for clothing, because WE need it to pay for our overspending.
Or, if they take it from ertion's company, well, that's less people I can afford to hire. Oh well, I guess the government would rather eat the golden goose than wait for the eggs.
Even at the local city government level, these folks take money from YOU peppermint, and from me, so they can give it to their friends. That extra half cent you pay on everything you buy, well, $90K of that went toward paying off a failed police chief that the city wanted gone. Another $400K to the city manager, and who knows how much to the new police chief the council had a Jonesin' for.
The problem though, is always presented as YOU and me are not paying enough. I guess they want every last nickel til we're out living on the streets and voting Democrat.
A few others are more than happy to raise taxes and wish to convince the rest of us that we should follow them.
BTW. These lines mentioned in the article. I feel they are not necessarily drawn in the north or the south. Meaning, for Americans to have any reasonable discussion, this should probably be treated as a financial issue instead of a geographic issue.
I never thought of it as a ponzi scheme. But come to think of it, there is a lot that can be compared between social security and a ponzi scheme. Both cannot last forever. My generation grew up thinking we didn't think it would still be there.
And now they're saying it's already gone. Spent.
Whoever he was, ponzi himself must have thought the same thing. This stamp-mailing-scheme surely can't last forever.
"To be a ponzi scheme there must be intent to defraud the stake holders. The US government hasn't mislead about social security or medicare."
You're kidding me, right? There absolutely was and continues to be intent to defraud. The people who designed this could read actuarial tables. They knew there would be a day of reckoning for this program. Those running it now know it can't be paid for and those paying into it will be cheated of their contributions.
Their fraud is laid bare when they admitted two months ago, in their implementation of CPI chaining, that they were explicitly limiting the official rate of inflation to well below what the real rate is, to inflate away the real dollars paid to retirees--TO SAVE THE GOVERNMENT MONEY by screwing the retirees out of it. Every year retirees lose 8 percent of their purchasing power. Dogfood, anyone?
MHarold continues,
"And, until it doesn't renege the contract of payment, it will not be constituted as a ponzi scheme."
So Ponzi wasn't a criminal until he actually couldn't pay, but not before he got to the point where he couldn't pay?
If you're really a moderate as you claim, stop defending Perry and Republicans for their callous statements and rigid stand and offer your opinion how should the social security be reformed and taxation and regulation be applied. Until that happens, I can't put you in any other political box than Right wing Republican.
I don't make any excuse of being bias. However, as much as you deny, you too make one sided argument but present yourself as an independent. Your positions are clearly with the right of the right wing of the GOP.
Have you been paying attention to the fact that Clinton's national security advisers provided a security briefing to the Bush team, after the 2000 election, about the possible Al-qaeda attack and ask the incoming government for a highest national security priority? Did the Bush team listen? No! Now you and few right wingers (in your case pretending to be unbiased neutral)is going to hold him responsible for failing to avoid 911?
You really believe that Bush inherited the sliding economy? That's a very lame argument and that's why such view is not shared outside Dr. Rush Limbaugh! LOL!!
Finally, Right wing extremists = Sees government as enemy Hate regulations No compromise (my way or highway) Hate Tax Loves defense spending Love rich hate poor attack all government programs believes Lowering tax to the rich is the solution for all problems. As far as I see, you fit the mold. If it walks like a duck and quack like a duck, It's a chicken??
To be a ponzi scheme there must be intent to defraud the stake holders. The US government hasn't mislead about social security or medicare. And, until it doesn't renege the contract of payment, it will not be constituted as a ponzi scheme.
MarkJ, You called Chocohalic and liberals in general, illiterate. If ranting and raving,and name calling is the definition of literacy then you can have the badge of honor.
you need to learn to make comment related to the posted article. The economy and deficit is a different topic for different day.
This article is about gutting social security or improving it to make it viable for generations to come. Perry has more than two occasions stated that he wants dismantle both. Recently, he has retracted his comment somewhat back. But the retraction has no meaning because if you say something once or twice, I may take it as accidental, but not after making the comment again and again. And, retracting after realizing you're killing your chance to be taken as a serious candidate, in my book, that makes his just another sleazy politician.