Posted on 09/14/2011 4:52:44 AM PDT by tobyhill
Mitt Romney may believe Social Security is constitutional, but he would have a hard time convincing some of the people who pushed the Social Security Act into law.
As I wrote in my book, "Control Freaks," some of the main players involved in creating Social Security believed it was unconstitutional -- and for good reason.
Yet, for them, not unlike many in today's Washington, the ultimate questions were not: Is this good for the long-term future of the country, and does Congress have authority to do it? They were: Will this serve our immediate political interests, and can we get away with it?
At Monday's Republican presidential debate, Romney attacked Texas Gov. Rick Perry for, as Romney put it, holding the view that "Social Security is unconstitutional."
It is important to note that neither Perry nor any other contemporary Republican leader is calling for the abolition of a program that has been in place for more than seven decades.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
I’m with El Rushbo:
You know, I warned ‘em, don’t get distracted on this sideshow of Social Security. Don’t do it. Don’t go there. You’re just pandering to the media. You’re doing what the media wants. You’re distracting everybody’s attention. You’re not talking about Obama’s vulnerabilities when you talk about Social Security. It’s not that big a problem right now in terms of the bigger issues that we face, and I’ve got the sound bite here. This is me earlier this month, September 2nd warning everybody in the Republican Party ‘cause there was a newspaper story, I forget what it was about, but everybody was saying, “Yay, look at this!” I said, “Don’t get sidetracked by this story.” Here’s what I said.
RUSH ARCHIVE: Anything that distracts our effort from the economy, jobs, higher taxes, federal regulations, is not a good thing. ... We’ve just got 14 months here, folks. Fourteen months to save this nation, 14 months to stop the assault on the private sector. ... Over the next six, seven months or longer, you’re gonna see ramped-up stores about gay marriage, social issues, illegal immigration, what have you, as a means of distracting the Republican presidential field from jobs, stimulus spending, higher taxes.
Very interesting article. Democrats/liberals are always willing to subvert the Constitution and find ways to push their agenda around the essential roadblocks put in place by the framers. For the executive branch to threaten the judicial branch is a disgusting exploitation of power.
I have to disagree with Rush saying “don’t go there.”
Obama brought it up, suggesting that the checks might not go out last month. He’s the one who poured gasoline on granny and dragged her into the arena, one hand on her neck and the other on a Bic lighter.
It is not inappropriate to discuss ways to get granny out of government’s clutches.
Someday those checks really might not go out.
Better talk about it and come up with a plan to fix it, rather than leave it too taboo-sacred to mention in public.
People should start getting used to thinking about it, and soon.
I’m with Rush. This election cycle should be about the economy, jobs, and Obama’s performance. Making it a referendum on Social Security is damn near the dumbest idea anyone could come up with.
Nevermind the fact that Medicare is a worse fiscal problem than SS. Obamacare should be the topic. Of course Obama brought it up. Anything is better for him than talking about the economy. Especially if he can get some inarticulate GOPers to stammer on stage about ending Social Security. The GOP fell right into the trap.
None of which has anything to do with Social Security!
Constitution? Gee, that’s over a hundred years old who cares about that? /Frustrated, end of my rope sarcasm
Right. In others words, the GOP fell into Obama’s trap and are distracted away from the economy, and are talking about something that helps DEMs. DUMB.
At least the candidates have an idea how to think about SS. When it comes to fighting Obamacare, it’s harder to find a coherent opposition. Instead we mainly hear “yeah, something’s got to be done, health care in America needs fixing!”
What it needs is for the government to get out of the way so the free market can function. Same answer for SS.
Roosevelt’s grand-son (who came across like a dunce on Fox this AM) says that Social Security was intended as an insurance plan.
Once again, the Federal government mandating that people purchase something. Whatever happened to choice?
Oh, choice? That only applies when you wnat to murder pre-born babies in the womb. Then the guvmint syas choice is legal.
When does the revolution start?
The only guy who handled the topic correctly in the debates was Newt.
Obama’s trap? Only if they don’t hammer it home that Obama made this threat.
America needs a lightbulb moment on the failure of government intervention in the economy, and this is an opportune moment to suggest free market capitalism.
Americans are by and large intelligent enough to confront this issue. IMO anyway.
There is no reason to believe that. Anyway, we disagree. Nothing else to say.
This is a stunning public admission that there's nothing of value in the lockbox. To redeem the IOUs, you have to issue new debt. Someone should connect the dots for the public.
SS doesn't have to be a Ponzi scheme--it could formally transition into an intergenerational transfer payment system where the amounts were explicitly budgeted each year, and didn't have the long term consequences of future obligations. Of course, that would have to happen at a lower payment level than the current promised amount. Any transition to an affordable level will take time and be very difficult electorally.
Very good, and appropriate, visual.
"What happened in 1937 was that in February the president came out with a scheme to 'pack' the Court," said Eliot. "No one knows, and there is some dispute about it, but I think that probably it's fair to say that the Court was not unmindful of this attack."
I ran across a case on here some time ago where the SCOTUS had said, in a case concerning New York ports I believe, that once goods arrived at their destination they were no longer "in interstate commerce". Then a few years later we got Wickard, very similar question but a 180 degree different finding.
Why is Wickard seen as settled law, but the prior case is not? As far as SS, if we have done something unconstitutional for over 70 years, must we then continue to do the thing?
the Nanny state fears Constitutional Government more than Al Queda....
You've read Raich v Gonzalez? Wickard was reaffirmed just a few years back by 6-3, including SCALIA. Why? Because drugs are bad.
Wickard was reaffirmed just a few years back by 6-3, including SCALIA. Why? Because drugs are bad.
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.