Posted on 03/01/2005 8:27:42 AM PST by crushkerry
Reading a recent Fox News Poll showing that Social Security reform is primarily being opposed by those who haven't taken care over their own retirement got me upset. But then, reading further articles on the subject it turns out that the anger was for the most part, misdirected. After all, these people are not the ones voting on the plan.
Thus,I decided to turn my ire towards supposedly conservative lawmakers who are hiding in the corner on Social Security reform because of poll numbers. I mean, these people are supposed to be "on our team" . And by "on our team" I don't mean every Republican has to march in lock step on this or any other issue.
Rather I am talking about the Congressmen who ran as "conservatives" but aren't willing to take a conservative stand on the most monumental domestic policy debate in recent memory. Sadly, it is their spinelessness on the issue that is feeding the press stories about "The President is having trouble winning over Republicans on the idea of private accounts". These stories feed on themselves in Washington. Because of these stories it seems some Republicans are already looking to compromise with plans that do nothing to solve the overall problem..
Let me introduce you to "Exhibit A" to illustrate my point. Being an eastern Pennsylvania resident I am very familiar with the voting record and positions of Representative Jim Gerlach. In fact, I make it a point every two years to know what his positions are, so while this debate has been going on I wanted to see what he had to say about it.
The first place I went was to the "Issues" section of his Congressional website and his positions on Social Security reform were noticeably absent, which I found odd and peculiar, given the importance of the issue.
But doing a little more research I found that Congressman Gerlach had commented a few days ago. Here's what he said:
Rep. Jim Gerlach, R-6th District, is glad President Bush has put Social Security's long-term problems on the table for discussion. But he doesn't believe private accounts will make the system financially sound over the long run.At best Gerlach's comments are ill informed and shallow. At worst they're disingenuous.
''My position on the whole thing is about solvency,'' Gerlach said. ''I'm not aware of anything of where you divert dollars out of the system into personal accounts, and that by itself will improve solvency.''
Gerlach said he is reluctant to back other proposals at this point, such as raising the retirement age, limiting benefits or raising the payroll tax. While each of those proposals would help make the system more solvent, they also would prove vastly unpopular with various interest groups.
Gerlach said what's needed is greater fiscal responsibility in Washington to keep the federal government from tapping Social Security's surplus for other programs.
''I think we need to again be talking about a lockbox,'' Gerlach said, resurrecting the term associated with former Vice President Al Gore. ''We've got to wean ourselves off of using payroll to pay for regular government.''
Reading his "solution" made my heart sink. Gerlach's proposed "fix" Social is cribbed from Al Gore, and his other plan of attack is equivalent the old canard of getting rid of "waste, fraud, and abuse".
To be fair, Gerlach did say he wanted "greater fiscal responsibility". All politicians say that, but quite simply Gerlach has no credibility on the issue. Why? He gave in to the Republican leadership on the budget busting Prescription Drug Bill which will increase the deficit by at least $724 billion.
How Congressman Gerlach can say with a straight face he is for "greater fiscal responsibility" when he voted for this bill is a mystery. Further the Prescription Drug Bill will do nothing to lower the long term obligations of the government. In fact, it's one of the biggest expansions of government in 40 years
On the other hand, the type of private accounts supported by the President would, in the long run, lower the nations long-term obligations. Why? Because in exchange for allowing private accounts, people would voluntarily be accepting a reduction in future benefits. Would it cost money in the short run? Yes, but so does a mortgage. How many people buying houses don't go into short term debt to get a long term benefit?
Even worse is what can only be described on Gerlach's utter cowardice in looking at other options at all. He's "reluctant" to raise the retirement age (even thought people are living far past it), to cut benefits (which if nothing is done will require huge tax increases, among other bad things), or to raise the payroll tax rate (which isn't on the table to begin with).
In short, Gerlach is letting the President do the heavy lifting all by himself, yet is bringing zero to the table in terms of support. He's also proposing vague "solutions" that are amorphous or have no chance of seeing the light of day. Gerlach fails to realize that not only are personal accounts a good idea and central tenet of conservatism, but also that passage of this bill will create Republican voters for years to come.
Much like the creation of social security created generations of Democrat voters who came to rely on government for their retirement, reforming that system will lead to generations of Republican voters. Why? Because when someone opts-in to personal accounts they will realize that he or she, rather than government, is in a far better position to take care of their own retirement. Quite simply, once someone realized they don't need the government in this area of their life, there's no reason for them to vote Democratic.
But as the article points out, it is the "special interests" that are the bogeyman for Gerlach. To be fair he has been involved in two close races, and will forever be on the Democrats "knock-off" list. What he's afraid of doing is drawing the ire of the senior citizens. Strangely, he also seems to be scared of the Moveon.org crowd who ran crass misleading advertisements in his district recently.
But what Gerlach, and many other Republicans fail to realize is that they are going to draw flak anyway. Gerlach voted for the Prescription Drug Bill and touted it during his campaign. However, his opponent still attacked him for not allowing imported drugs from Canada. Further, polls show that seniors still don't think the bill goes far enough. ($740 billion isn't enough?). Face it, some people will never be placated until they are given everything for free. Gerlach's opposition to private accounts will not matter come November. You can bet he'll be painted as hostile to seniors by his opponent come hell or high water.
Had Gerlach simply said "I don't agree that Social Security is a problem" and will not support any reform I would have more respect for him. I would think him very wrong, of course, but the respect would be there. However, when he acknowledges there's a problem, and offers no real solution, he deserves to be called out.
So perhaps it's time for Gerlach, and the others like him, to show some of political courage and stand up for their allegedly "conservative" beliefs.
Ping
This smacks of a bunch of socialists calling each other names and playing a game of who does the best job of pretending not to be a socialist. Anyone proposing anything other than the immediate phase-out of Social Security is un-conservative anyway which makes all of this Republican-baiting a farce.
Regardless of whether Bush's tinkering or the Democrats' stalling wins the day, the end result is the same: the government confiscates ever more of my earnings to redistribute to someone else. Imagine if all of this ink and effort was directed at eliminating the program altogether.
Amen.
Like the people who have to pay the damned taxes!
Is Lispy Graham in this camp too?
Every day ,more and more, I am thinking the the republicans are evolutionary socialists. Rats might be too, just on a faster clip. But with no one in congress really wanting to make cuts or changes, I am left with that conclusion.
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.