Posted on 10/17/2007 1:02:05 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON - Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani ruled out a tax increase Wednesday to help shore up Social Security, a slight shift in position designed to reassure anti-tax conservatives.
The former New York mayor also said the best remedy for the current housing slump would be for Congress to make President Bush's tax cuts permanent, adding that would "do much much more for the economy than a tailored bailout."
In an appearance before the Club for Growth, he said that as mayor of New York, he had cut spending by more than "any contemporary of mine in the 1990s" in government, a category that presumably included former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a presidential rival.
Giuliani leads his Republican rivals in national opinion polls, and was one of three contenders on the agenda for the Club for Growth meeting. Former Sen. Fred Thompson and Romney were the others — the former governor by remote hookup.
Like other contenders for the White House, Giuliani has yet to outline a detailed proposal for overhauling Social Security, the giant government retirement system that faces a financial crisis as the Baby Boom generation ages and begins to draw benefits.
In an interview last month with The Associated Press, Giuliani refused to rule out raising taxes to help shore up Social Security.
He said at the time he would assemble a bipartisan group to develop proposals.
"I am opposed to tax increases, but I would look at whatever proposal they came up with and try to figure out how we can come up with a bipartisan way to do it," he said at the time.
The comments led to an exchange of letters between the campaign and the anti-tax group Club for Growth, whose political action committee has intervened forcefully in recent Republican primary elections on behalf of economic conservatives.
Giuliani's campaign sought to reassure the group that the former mayor opposed tax increases.
"In addition to opposing Social Security taxes, we hope Mayor Giuliani will go one very important step further and offer a detailed free-market proposal for reforming Social Security that includes personal savings accounts and returns choice and freedom to individual taxpayers," Pat Toomey, the club's president, responded by letter.
Asked by Toomey at the morning meeting to discuss Social Security, Giuliani quickly responded, "I would rule out a tax increase for that purpose or any purpose."
He said he would create a bipartisan commission to recommend changes, then laid down two elements of any solution. "No tax increase and No. 2, that we come out of it with at least the beginnings of private accounts," he said. He suggested that younger workers be given the ability to create personal Social Security accounts at first.
"I do think Republicans have to be careful not to get too far out in terms of recommendations of Social Security," he said. To do otherwise is to invite a "sucker punch" from Democrats who will claim Republicans want to deny retirees their benefits, he added.
Ironically, while Giuliani and other Republicans all strive to be seen as Reagan's political heir, payroll taxes rose as part of the compromise he reached with Democrats in Congress.
The GOP’s best position on social security is simple: “The Dems are in control of Congress. If they pass something that will fix the social security system, then I’ll sign it.”
It’s a safe position to take, because of course, unless the Dems pass a $10 trillion tax increase, or cut benefits by $10 trillion, or some combination of the two, he will never have to sign anything.
I think Rudy has now far exceeded Mitt in any flip flopping.
Heck, I think he’s even surpassed John Kerry! (Hard to do!)
Geesh girl. I waiting for him to up the ante and offer $10,000 to every kid born in the US. Show Shrillary up to be a tightwad.
Bucks for all!
We need to get more candidates. Then we wouldn’t even have to go to work, ever.
The Democrats are never going to cut anyone’s benefits. By saying he would not raise SS taxes to get a fix, Rudy is leaving himself open to the Democrats ginning up all the greedy geezers to vote AGAINST him IMO.
Replace that pic with Rudy's and he'd be all for it! LOL.
Replace that pic with Rudy's and he'd be all for it! LOL.
No doubt. Now that would be a political opportunists “marriage made in heaven”.LOL
Nonsense. The Dems say there is nothing wrong with social security. How can they now conclude that by ruling out a tax increase, he’s effectively opted to cut benefits?
The Democrats do NOT say there is nothing wrong with SS. They claim the program doesn’t need to be overhauled or changed, just another of the usual fixes of kicking the can farther down the road is all it needs. They claim that the fix is going to be higher taxes or benefit cuts, or a combination of both. Since Rudy has effectively ruled out a tax hike to fix the problem, that leaves a benefit cut as his solution. I’m sure the Democrats are already cutting commercials to run to scare seniors if they can get him the Republican nomination.
I remember well another pubbie Presidential hopeful making almost the same promise! It started out like, "Read my lips................".
The Club for Growth sure has them all on their best behavior today. It’s just like it is when the Dummies go to the KOS convention.
If that’s the case, then all of the GOP contenders are toast because they’ve all said they would not increase taxes. I don’t buy it though. It’s only when you actually propose a social security fix that it becomes a problem. Some of the candidates have done that, but not Rudy. There really is no way to fix social security at this late date anyway. The only thing you can do is say that you will work with Congress, but won’t sign a tax increase. It’s up to Congress to fix this problem anyway. The Dems have been the roadblock, so there is no point in the President proposing anything.
Why won’t they just vote for their betters, these cow-pie kicking boot-scooters, then they can go back to handling snakes or making moonshine or whatever it is these yokels do in this midwestern hell-hole . . . where are we again?
The mike’s on? fuggedabout it! Really?
It’s really great to be here, in America’s Heartland!
Why on 9-11, when I was lifting steel beams off . . .
That is a big difference between Hillary and him. Hillary ruled out personal accounts and any privatization.
Just as was the case in 1983, the status quo is not an option. SS is a pay as you go system. Starting in 2008, the SS "surplus" starts declining [meaning a loss in revenue for the USG] and by 2017 the system will be paying out more than it is taking in.
The Dems and those who want to continue kicking the can down the road, will repeat what they did in 1983, that is raise taxes and reduce benefits, including raising the retirement age for full benefits to 67 on a phased basis. Look for them to do the same thing this time. They will raise the retirement age, tinker with the COLA formula, raise the cap on earnings faster than is the case now, and perhaps do some changes in the formula allocating benefits providing less to those who have a higher average wage over a 35 year period.
In 1983, the "fix" was supposed to last for 75 years, but we will be back in the same boat in 2017, 34 years later with a much bigger problem. Ronald Reagan signed the bill. So will Rudy or anyone else in the WH. SS is unsustainable as currently structured.
The dims do not want to tinker with the earnings cap. They want to abolish it. Eliminating the cap will increase employment costs and divert a huge sum of money from private investments to federal revenue.
Ultimately, the dim goal is to eliminate payroll taxes and raise income taxes. They want more than 50% not paying taxes to ensure their grip on power.
You can tell he’s lying. It’s almost imperceptible, but if you watch closely you can see his lips moving when he speaks. He tries to pretend that if he doesn’t moves his lips, you won’t notice that he speaks out of both sides of his mouth.
If you have listened to the Dem debates, many of them want to "tinker" with the earnings cap, including Obama and Edwards. Obama wants to eliminate it. Edwards wants to raise it immediately to $200,000. Of course, it already goes up every year now and will be over $100,000 in 2008.
Eliminating the earnings cap would be an economic disaster for the country. Removing Social Security's Tax Cap on Wages Would Do More Harm Than Good Even just raising it to $200,000 would cause tremendous harm to the economy and would do little in the long run to solving the problems with SS.
Ultimately, the dim goal is to eliminate payroll taxes and raise income taxes. They want more than 50% not paying taxes to ensure their grip on power.
In reality, SS taxes are income taxes. Any "surplus" is diverted into the general fund. SS has been a cash cow for the USG. And when it starts paying out more than it was taking in, as was the case in 1983, they just tweak the system and create another "surplus" to fund other programs.
Today, nearly 80% of Americans pay more in Social Security taxes than they do in federal income tax. Social Security taxes have been raised more than 40 times since the program began. It is a Ponzi scheme. The Dems want to perpetuate the idea that SS is a separate, autonomous system so that they can increase taxes and just say that they are saving the system. In reality, they are generating more revenue to be used elsewhere while increasing the national debt. They don't want to eliminate the payroll tax. It gives them cover for a gullible, uninformed public who actually believe that the SSTF contains real assets.
We are in agreement. The dims want massive tax increases on the wealthy, however they define wealthy. The tax increases can be through income taxes, payroll taxes, carbon taxes, or any other scheme to redistribute wealth. They want to preserve and expand the massive entitlement programs. They also want more than 50% paying little or no taxes with many in the group being net tax receivers. If the dims execute their plans, there will be no turning back. The net tax receivers will never vote the dims out unless the economy completely crashes. Even then, the dim response will be more socialism and blame on the producers.
Like I said, the SS system is beyond fixing. It can’t be fixed, so there is no point in trying.
Payroll taxes are taxes. The individual even in the bottom 50% must pay 6.2% in payroll tax and 1.45% for Medicare taxes or a total of 7.65% and then the employer must match it for a grand total of 15.3%. Yes, there is an EIC and other targetted tax breaks, but it is a fallacy to say that the bottom 50% pay "little or no taxes." Once you include local and state income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, etc. they are being taxed enough. The Dems and Reps like to perpetuate the myth that those at the bottom of the economic ladder are not paying their fair share, but FICA taxes are the most regressive of all.
Yes, the Dems want to increase the people's dependence upon the government. That is why they will do anything to keep SS and Medicare alive, even if it eventually leads to the financial destruction of this country, i.e., these programs are approaching a $70 trillion unfunded liability for future generations.
The way to fix it is to privatize it. The Dems will fix it by kicking the can down the road trying to postpone the inevitable. In the process, the entire country is headed for a giant train wreck in the not too distant future. The problems with SS pale in comparison with what lies ahead with Medicare/Medicaid.
Payroll taxes cannot be equated to other taxes because of the associated benefits. Social security and Medicare provide benefits that are at least indirectly connected to payroll taxes. These entitlement programs are reasonable deals for the low wage worker, especially with spousal benefits or disability. For the middle and high wage earner, these programs are theft.
Payroll taxes are not regressive. The high wage earner receives benefits about the same as the low wage worker even though the high wage earner pays far more taxes. Payroll taxes are part of a huge income redistribution scheme that the dims desperately want to maintain. The dims are trying to blur the line between payroll taxes and income taxes because they want to raise taxes on the wealthy and lower taxes for the net tax recipients.
The word regressive is a leftist term. When everyone pays the same rate, the correct term is fair. Everyone pays the same payroll tax rate because the benefits are based on years of service and earnings. However, the benefits received for the low wage worker are about the same as the benefits for the high wage worker. The word to describe this situation is theft!
John Kerry was carrying a rifle and wearing an orange jump suit swearing he was in favor gun rights while running for President in 2004.
Why should we believe Giuliani any more than a Democrat with a liberal record?
Let's ask his ex-wife and kids how good Rudy's word is.
I’m sure Rudy is just thinking that its not really raising taxes to raise the cap on SS “contributions.”
Without raising benefits, of course.
I see you are drinking the Dem Kool-aid. SS and Medicare are forms of insurance. There is no guarantee you will ever collect a penny. Someone can pay into SS for 50 years, even the maximum amount, and the most they could collect would be a small burial allowance depending upon their individual circumstances. And the poor generally don't live as long as the more advantaged.
From the perspective of the USG, it matters not where these tax revenues come from. They are all tossed into a common pot after the benefits are paid. SS is currently a cash cow for the USG.
Payroll taxes are not regressive. The high wage earner receives benefits about the same as the low wage worker even though the high wage earner pays far more taxes.
In point of fact, the lower income worker receives greater benefits due to the formula used to compute the benefits that weights the lower wages more. However, when I said that the FICA taxes were regressive, I meant that as a proportion of income, they pay more. Someone making $600K a year only pays SS taxes on the first $97,500, not on the remainder. A worker making $30,000 a year pays it on the entire amount. It affects his disposable income more.
Payroll taxes are part of a huge income redistribution scheme that the dims desperately want to maintain. The dims are trying to blur the line between payroll taxes and income taxes because they want to raise taxes on the wealthy and lower taxes for the net tax recipients..
Not really. The Dems want to maintain the fiction that payroll taxes are different because you receive something for them, i.e., your argument that they can't be equated to income tax because of the associated benefits. The reality is that the money all goes into the same pot. And there is an incentive to have those taxes run a "surplus" so they can use the additional revenue to spend on other government programs. It is a shell game. We would be far better off having SS and Medicare as line items on the federal budget rather than creating this facade that they are separate. Medicare B is already a line item, which is why premiums are tied to costs and there are two tiers to assess premiums based on income, which essentially is a form of means testing.
Alfonse D'Amato, former Republican Senator from New York.
Social security and Medicare are not insurance. They are vast income redistribution schemes. They have been popular because of their Ponzi scheme funding which provided the illusion of free money. Seniors loved these programs because they paid little in taxes and received reasonable benefits.
I agree that all taxes go into the general fund. However, payroll taxes have been connected with entitlement programs. The dims are crying that low wage workers are taxed regressively because of the earnings cap. There is a cap on benefits, hence a cap on earnings. Social security is a bad deal (theft) for high wage workers even with the cap.
The problem with social security and medicare are that they are massive, socialist schemes. The government has no business to provide retirement income and health care to everyone. Any vast socialist program is doomed to failure. Beyond welfare for the truly needy, the government should not be in the business of providing retirement income and health care.
Entitlement programs have the potential to sink the economy. There will be benefit cuts, directly or indirectly. Raising taxes is an indirect benefit cut. No one can reliably predict the economic impact of raising taxes and increased government spending resulting from the entitlement meltdown.
I support privatization even to the point where I will give up my benefits if my taxes are eliminated now. I do not want any part of social security. I am sure that many others share my sentiments.
Progressive & Regressive taxes describe the tax table, not a political opinion. It's like a mathematical function. Most often these are called progressive or regressive tax tables or taxes. In a progressive tax, the more you earn, the higher your tax rate. In a regressive tax, the less you earn, the higher your tax rate. The classical progressive tax is income tax. The classical regressive tax is sales tax.
Seniors loved these programs because they paid little in taxes and received reasonable benefits.
Correction: They receive much more than they put in, which is why it is a Ponzi scheme.
I agree that all taxes go into the general fund. However, payroll taxes have been connected with entitlement programs. The dims are crying that low wage workers are taxed regressively because of the earnings cap. There is a cap on benefits, hence a cap on earnings. Social security is a bad deal (theft) for high wage workers even with the cap.
Technically, the payroll taxes go into the SSTF. Once the benefits are paid, the "surplus" is deposited into the General fund and the amount of the surplus converted into non-market T-bills that are kept in the SSTF.
As I have stated previously, the only way to make SS solvent is to privatize it.
The problem with social security and medicare are that they are massive, socialist schemes. The government has no business to provide retirement income and health care to everyone. Any vast socialist program is doomed to failure. Beyond welfare for the truly needy, the government should not be in the business of providing retirement income and health care.
Unfortunately, the political will doesn't exist to eliminate these programs.
Entitlement programs have the potential to sink the economy. There will be benefit cuts, directly or indirectly. Raising taxes is an indirect benefit cut. No one can reliably predict the economic impact of raising taxes and increased government spending resulting from the entitlement meltdown
The principal problem with the entitlement programs is that they are on automatic pilot with the increases in benefits not tied to revenue. As a result, there is a huge unfunded liability.
I support privatization even to the point where I will give up my benefits if my taxes are eliminated now. I do not want any part of social security. I am sure that many others share my sentiments.
The voters decide, not you. Therefore, we will continue to have this mandatory system until it bankrupts the country. It will take a crisis to make changes.
privatizing would have worked if we’d done it when Clinton was president. now its too late. the only thing you can privatize, really, without increasing taxes to pay current benefits, is the annual SS surplus. And that is small and getting smaller every year. By 2016, it will be gone altogether. that’s not long enough to fill in the hole we’ve dug.
Not so. There are ways to cover the transition costs. Transition Financing
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.