Well, I guess it could be worse...
Posted on 09/09/2011 12:07:22 PM PDT by smoothsailing
Friday, September 9, 2011
Christian Heinze
On Fox News today, Sarah Palin offered Rick Perry a more gentle way of talking about Social Security.
"What Rick Perry was trying to say, I believe, is that there needs to be reform. Status quo is not acceptable, because these programs are insolvent.
.... So he's saying reform is necessary."
Perry has written that Social Security is a "failure" and "Ponzi Scheme", and returned to those themes in Wednesday night's debate.
If Perry were really just saying "reform is necessary", then pretty much everyone, including Romney, would agree. Palin's suggested rhetoric is much less controversial than Perry's.
I give her credit for reaching out to the Perry campaign with the hand of friendship and support.
Perry and Palin are both right. Social Security is a Ponzi scheme and a failure and it is in need of reform.
Perry ping.
Whatever SS began as, it has Ponzi proportions now.
IF you'd rather NOT be pinged FReepmail me.
IF you'd like to be added FReepmail me. Thanks.
I am hoping we see some more crisp handling of issues like this at the Monday debate. Perry did well in areas and was a little off rhythm on others. He did not say anything bad, but he can knock some of these predictable questions out of the park with a little more experience and prep. With the fires this week, I am guessing they lost some prep time for this first debate. Hopefully, they get a little more time this weekend to rehearse 30 second answers, and start laying out strong positions on global warming, social security, and jobs in Texas that reflect his experience. I started his book recently to better understand. He offers a tremendous conservative message as a counter narrative to the Obama nightmare.
Gov. Perry has consistently said that SS is a Ponzi scheme for "the youngest workers" contributing into SS, unless it is reformed. And that any reforms can still salvage/continue the payments to those currently drawing SS funds to live on.
If status quo is maintained, a young worker in their 20's have NO chance of receiving SS benefits 40 years from now.
Who would criticize Palin for saying this? She is doing a better job clarifying Perry’s point than Perry did himself in Wednesday’s debate.
Perry is right, the status quo with Social Security has to end. He did not make the point well and left Romney’s claim he wants to abolish it unanswered. Governor Palin really shines in these interviews on Fox News and Fox Business and is simply making the argument that changes are necessary.
So why didn't he say that?
The problem Perry has is that he needs to bridge the gap between “SS was a bad idea from the start”, a “Ponzie Scheme”, and “a failure”, to the idea of fixing it. I don’t think that’s a hard problem for him.
It’s easy for opponents to say “if it’s a failure, he must not want it continued”. Palin here does a good thing, pointing out that in some cases, you need to fix something that is failing, not throw it out. I presume she wants to fix it NOT because she thinks it should have been enacted in the first place, but because people have paid into it their entire lives, and deserve to get something back, even if it means hardship for the country to do so.
The goal has to be to make the program more sustainable in the short term, and to free the next generation from it’s claws in the long-term.
But the key right now is to solve our debt problem, and that means we need to make SS sustainable over the next 10 years, when we don’t have the political ability to make any major changes, especially for those who are too old to recover from big cuts, and have already paid for longer than they will live from now.
I’ve already been paying into SS for 30+ years, and I’m below the age at which politicians will guarantee no changes. That’s OK with me, but I think it’s fair for me to at least push to get my money back out over time. Might not happen of course.
Well, I guess it could be worse...
Good for Palin.
I think because he was asked about his statement from his book, and he wanted to make it clear he stood by what he said, to counter the false perception being spread by the left and some conservatives backing other candidates that he was a flip-flopper who was abandoning his book for political expediency.
Maybe he went overboard, but he stood by his statements, and said what was true — and he never said he wanted to kill social security, so that was just made up by his opponents.
That wasn’t clarifying. That was agreeing.
The remarks didn’t need clarifying... and I think Palin would agree with that.
Sorry,but if Perry needs tanslating, he’s not the man for the job.
Could we possibly see a Perry/Palin ticket?
Exactly correct. And he needs to do this quick. No candidate that people believe want to outright "abolish" social security is electable. The public is barely ready to even considers changes to entitlements, so Perry must emphasize that he is talking about fixing the program by ending the status quo.
The rest of your points are excellent as well.
That’s it, Sarah is a RINO!!!
Seriously though, I disagree and commend Perry for having the guts to call a spade a spade. I don’t think it will hurt him in the long run. Most people who pay attenction (i.e. likely voters) already know it’s a Ponzi scheme. The pundits have to argue that he is right, but shouldn’t say so. That’s a losing argument.
Not actually true...he started his statement with the fact that he said those getting SS or about to won't see things change.
He should have stated it again, however.
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.