Posted on 08/20/2007 11:34:20 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Fred Thompson's long-delayed entrance into the presidential race has been eagerly anticipated by millions of Republicans unhappy with their present choices. If the former Tennessee senator and “Law and Order” TV star lives up to the promises he made in a recent interview with columnist David Broder, his anticipated September entry is good news for an even-larger group: those who worry about the future of this country. That's because Thompson vows to focus on a huge but routinely ignored problem: the enormous financial strain facing the federal government when 77 million baby boomers start to retire five months from now.
So far, Democratic presidential candidates have chosen demagoguery on the issue, trotting out the usual scare tactics about nonexistent GOP plans to scrap Social Security. For the most part, prominent Republicans have chosen to ignore the issue for fear of offending anyone. The media also have been abysmal, writing 10 times as much about earmarks – an ugly, ongoing scandal, but not a fundamental threat to our way of life.
That's not an overstatement of the seriousness of the entitlements problem. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid now consume about 44 percent of the budget. Unless something changes the status quo, boomers' mass retirement will drive up the cost of these three entitlement programs to 75 percent of an equivalent budget in 2030.
Unless we want to wreck the economy, something's got to give. If we borrow more to cover the multitrillion-dollar annual deficits, we face a scenario in which a quarter or more of federal revenue goes just to pay interest on debt. If we raise taxes sharply, watch for an exodus of jobs and industries to China, India and other low-tax suitors without historical parallel.
Thompson understands that change is mandatory. He quotes a Government Accountability Office warning that the status quo is “unsustainable” and laments that Congress and the White House made matters far worse by giving seniors a Medicare prescription-drug benefit – “a $17 trillion add-on to a program that's going bankrupt,” awarded to a group that already for the most part had such benefits from other sources.
The sooner he hits the campaign trial pointing out the dire straits we are in, the better – because the longer we wait to address the problem, the worse it will be. We know the options – raising the retirement age; adopting an annual benefit-increase formula based on inflation, not wages; raising the amount of income subject to the Social Security tax; reducing benefits for the millions of affluent elderly; etc. So let's finally start the great debate.
If we keep ducking the issue, the toll will include more than just a ruined economy. As we move from a nation in which there are four people working for every person relying on a government check to a nation in which the ratio is two to one, watch for the rise of a bitter intergenerational conflict. The workers will resent the retirees who rely on them – and with good reason.
Fred Thompson wants to avoid this fate. So should everyone.
Couldn’t be, he’s not running...
Damn, what was that all about...
Should read “Couldn’t be, he’s not running...”
Yeah, he’s absolutely correct but good luck with that bad-news message. It did wonders for Bush. /s The AARP is going to relish this candidacy.
...zzzzzzz....
And of course every one of them was a lower middle class laborer, none will be millionaires, none will have saved for their retirement and have a private or company pension plan, which will then make their old age pension a worthless monthly annoyance that will be clawed back through taxes at the end of the year anyways, because they have too much income from other sources.
None of these 77 million baby boomer's will drop dead before they even see their first pension check, despite us being told that us baby boomer's are the fattest, unhealthy people on the planet. None will die within the first year of retirement, and none will die within 5 years of retirement.
While I was all for pension reform, turning it into a proper interest earning personal pension fund that would have enabled the wiser to contribute more than the mandatory amount and manage it like a regular RSP or 401K fund, (which of course Democrats loudly opposed) I don't think the end of the world is coming just because a few people are retiring. There are just as many entering the work force who will be forced to toss their money into this mismanaged, "general revenues" cookie jar which Democrats love to spend like there's no tomorrow.
Had this government followed Canada's lead when they reformed their pension plan turning it into a self sustaining and ever growing fund which will meet future demands, and interest accumulating fund that is off limits to spend happy politicians.
It's either that or something like it, or scrap the whole thing altogether, let people put that money into something that will grow. If they are too stupid to do that, then there is always welfare. That's basically what old age security checks in this current system are anyways. The money people contribute to it just goes into general revenue, and iwas spend long ago just like all the rest of the tax taken off your checks. Makes no difference at all if they call the deduction "old age security" or federal tax.
If he doesn’t first start with the Fair Tax reform with repeal of the income tax, then he won’t have the money or strong economy to accomplish anything! I hear he is cool to the Fair Tax plan. For that, he won’t get my vote.
Ping!
Also while I don’t know that the Fair tax will end up being the best approach as it has some issues for business and upper income folks which may impede its progress, I do know several Fair Tax people have be happy with some of Fred’s statements.
I will say things will be interesting. We are going to see tax reform in some way, it maybe a mix of several approaches, and I feel pretty comfortable that Thompson is open to doing something to get that monkey off our backs...
But what he chooses to talk about with entitlements is different from any other candidate. It is what makes Fred distinctive and sets him apart from the rest of the field.
If he succeeds in getting people to talk and think about this in a way that isn’t covered in emotions, he will be doing a great thing.
Maybe the other candidates learned when Bush tried to talk about entitlements... and the GOP as well as conservatives were distracted while the AARP and the Dems pounded on Bush.
I hope Fred is successful with dealing with entitlements.
He has always said he didn’t start out in high school wanting to be president, it isn’t his lifelong ambition. He said that he wants to accomplish things and that would be why he would run. He’s living up to that committment. He doesn’t want to be president just to hold the office or for the emoluments that go with it.
If he can’t get elected by speaking the truth he can go back to being the happiest man in the world. And our country will deserve what it gets.
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.