Friday Palin op-ed in the Journal: I endorse Paul Ryan’s roadmap on entitlements
posted at 8:25 pm on December 9, 2010 by Allahpundit
It’s no secret that she’s a Ryan fan (see here and here for starters, as one Twitter pal reminded me) but as far as I know, this is the first time she’s explicitly endorsed his roadmap as her preferred blueprint for entitlement reform. Which, I think, is a big deal: Ryan’s problem all along has been that, for all the positive press he gets, he can’t get the Republican leadership to talk seriously about entitlements for fear that doing so will scare off seniors and other prized constituencies. (That’s why I was surprised by his no vote on the Deficit Commission; it would have been a good way to keep the conversation going.) Palin’s op-ed alone won’t force McConnell and Boehner to get serious, but it will give new currency to Ryan’s plan and to the project of long-term fiscal solvency generally among tea partiers and the conservative base, and they can conceivably force McConnell and Boehner to get serious. That was the whole point of this post from a few weeks ago, in fact — that there’s only one faction in American politics right now willing and able to exert pressure on Congress to deal with this overarching problem. And since she’s uniquely positioned to bring things to the attention of that faction — and, if she runs, to inject this subject into primary debates — this piece is all to the good.
The commission’s recommendations are a disappointment. That doesn’t mean, though, that the commission’s work was a wasted effort. For one thing, it has exposed the large and unsustainable deficits that the Obama administration has created through its reckless “spend now, tax later” policies.
It also establishes a clear bipartisan consensus on the need to fundamentally reform our entitlement programs. We need a better plan to build on these conclusions with common-sense reforms to tackle our long-term funding crisis in a sustainable way.In my view, a better plan is the Roadmap for America’s Future produced by Rep. Paul Ryan (R., Wisc.). The Roadmap offers a reliable path to long-term solvency for our entitlement programs, and it does so by encouraging personal responsibility and independence.
On health care, it would replace ObamaCare with a new system in which people are given greater control over their own health-care spending. It achieves this partly through creating medical savings accounts and a new health-care tax credit—the only tax credit that would be left in a radically simplified new income tax system that people can opt into if they wish.
The Roadmap would also replace our high and anticompetitive corporate income tax with a business consumption tax of just 8.5%. The overall tax burden would be limited to 19% of GDP (compared to 21% under the deficit commission’s proposals). Beyond that, Rep. Ryan proposes fundamental reform of Medicare for those under 55 by turning the current benefit into a voucher with which people can purchase their own care.
Follow the last link and read it all. One footnote via Philip Klein at AmSpec: Apparently, Paul Ryan told Ryan Ellis, the Tax Policy Director of Americans for Tax Reform, a few days ago that he’s phasing out the consumption tax on businesses (a.k.a. VAT) and replacing it with some as-yet-unannounced revenue-generator. That is to say, the roadmap is still a work in progress, which doesn’t mean Palin’s support will change but rather that you shouldn’t consider all of the provisions described in her op-ed as set in stone.
Two obvious exit questions here. One: Does this mean a Palin/Ryan ticket is officially on the table? And two: If she’s nominated, what’s going to happen to the all-important senior vote in the general election once Democrats start clubbing her over the head with this? I admire her guts in backing it, but it’s not a pure asset for a candidacy. Just ask McConnell and Boehner.
Update: Whoops, look like someone got their signals crossed. According to Klein, Ryan’s not dropping the consumption tax after all.
Update: The plot thickens: Ryan Ellis insists that Paul Ryan told him the consumption tax is out.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3
Remember this is just the first step in what’s likely to be a huge paradigm shift. That kinds of change in thinking doesn’t come in one go or one plan. What we need is not this aprticular plan but something like it and her endorsement moves the ball forward in focusing the discussion.
promachus on December 10, 2010 at 1:11 AM
Okay, this is really complicated… my eyes glazed over.
On this one, I’ll let people tell me what’s in it.
I just want to solve the debt and deficit problems and get government out of all the little things they think are their business but aren’t.
petunia on December 10, 2010 at 1:17 AM
Based on my observations, there are four factors to winning office in presidential politics:
Foundational:
_ 1: This is who I am.
_ 2: This is what I believe.
Political:
_ 3: This is what I want to do.
_ 4: Come join me. (The only mandatory factor)
In order to win, a political figure needs at least two of those factors, with factor 4 being mandatory in that no one will vote for someone they don’t want to join with politically. Landslide winners hit all four factors.
Obama, as it has been revealed, pulled a bait-and-switch with factors 1 and 2 to get enough people to want to pull the lever for him (factor 4). He was not really very specific about 3 and the press avoided reporting the times he was. Unfortunately for him, a false narrative always collapses, and it seems to be doing so early and in public view.
Factors 1 and 2 are tough for any conservative to get across, since few in the intelligentsia – especially the press – are willing to believe or honestly report on a conservative. There, too, a false narrative is used to paint a distorted picture, but betting on a false narrative over a long period is a suckers bet. It happens from time to time, but needs to be unchallenged to work.
Palin has had a false narrative running against her from the day she accepted McCain’s offer. The press will continue to use that false narrative (dumb, inexperienced, unqualified) no matter what she does, so her only option is to bypass the press.
Palin’s TLC show is giving Americans a close look at factor 1. She has also published books covering factors 1 (Going Rogue) and 2 (America by Heart). I expect her earliest campaign to be philosophical as well, explaining again what she believes. Her op-eds (and her likely next book) cover factors 2 and 3. Any campaign she runs will use all three to try to gain factor 4.
As for myself, I support Palin so far because:
1: I think I know who she is, and I like her. If something convinces me that she is not who she presents herself to be, this can change.
2: I share most of her beliefs. If something convinces me she is being disingenuous in what she says she believes, this can change.
3: I think what she wants as far as policy are good, so far as she has expressed policy preferences. Should she express a policy preference I disagree with, this can change.
And so…
4: I will join her. This can change.
Random Numbers (Brian Epps) on December 10, 2010 at 1:18 AM
This is it, folks. This is the chance. Either she runs on this, with Ryan, or she endorses him. We get one shot.
cpaulus on December 10, 2010 at 2:12 AM
That’s the problem with SS. It’s been the thinking that the govmint will care for our retirement needs.
However, does anyone really believe SS will be there for them, I don’t.
If anyone else does, then they are either simply living in a Walt Disney world, or just plain stupid. TO the later I suspect.
Ryan does break it down into simple points. However, he doesn’t have the Star Power that Palin has, even Tweeting.
But they would make a good team.
Kini on December 10, 2010 at 3:06 AM
Mittens is hiding under his desk, as usual.
karenhasfreedom on December 10, 2010 at 3:23 AM
She backs it , but at the same time leaving the door open by saying it’s not perfect just the best.
Thereby she’s not locked to it.
the_nile on December 10, 2010 at 4:24 AM
In her article Palin wrote
Seriously? I’m stunned that she would endorse this.
Virginia Shanahan on December 10, 2010 at 6:53 AM
Ryan and Palin are delusional. Ryan is already selling out on the latest “compromise on taxes” with Pelosi and Obama. DeMint in the Senate is following suit. They are happily signing on to the ethanol boondoggle and actively working on undermining their earmark pledges.
Pelosi and crew will continue to eat their lunch even in the minority. Repubs have no core principles. The tea party in DC a charade–on main street it is not. But main street has no import in DC. The 2010 election has already been cast aside with three of the biggest Repub rhinos made heads of the three most important committees. Where’s Palin on this–nowhere.
Obama is going to have an easy time of it in 2012 as the impotent Repubs are thrown out of office again–just where they deserve for having no core values. Even if you disagree with Dems–at least they stand on their beliefs.
patrick neid on December 10, 2010 at 8:07 AM
Mark Levin press secretary.
Who’d dare ask him anything? BWHAHAHAHAHAA!!!
ProudPalinFan on December 10, 2010 at 8:30 AM
Based on my observations, there are four factors to winning office in presidential politics:
Foundational:
_ 1: This is who I am.
_ 2: This is what I believe.
Political:
_ 3: This is what I want to do.
_ 4: Come join me. (The only mandatory factor)
Obama:
1: Unamerican
2: In Frank Marshall Davis, Jeremiah Wright, my dad, and George Soros
3: Why don’t youuuu….check out Greece? And eeeh, throw down our weapons at our enemies’ feet? Theenn, people will like us. We’d be equal to them.
4: That’s the part where we got screwed up big time. Some foam Greek columns helped too, along with a fake POTUS seal.
ProudPalinFan on December 10, 2010 at 8:38 AM
patrick neid on December 10, 2010 at 8:07 AM
At a minimum if you are referring to Palin’s endorsement of Ryan’s road map on entitlements as delusional, it is you sir who is “delusional” because Palin is endorsing a “long-term” alteration of the structure of government while “the compromise on taxes” as you call it is a short-term solution to boosting the economy 2011 and 2012.
Obviously you see the world through a “jaundiced eye” for the GOP is not yet in power in the House. You claim that “the 2010 election has already been cast aside.” Have you forgotten that the GOP doesn’t take charge until January 2011? And the TP candidates are not serving their constituents yet.
And finally you say Obama is going to have an easy time in 2012. With only 37% of WHITE voters supporting him or barely over 40% of independents giving him the thumbs up? With only 40% of the electorate who feels the Messiah deserves to be re-elected? Polling at roughly 45% in daily tracking polls with Rasmussen or Gallup is not prescription for success in two years.
patrick, I would not for one minute suggest that Obama cannot win re-election but based on the above evidence, it is you who is delusional if you think that his re-election will be easy. patrick, this may sound racist, but when a Marxist African-American is only endorsed by 37% of WHITE red-blooded Americans, many of them conservative you have a formula for utter political failure. And don’t expect white guilt to bail out the Anointed One in 2012. That ship has already sailed.
technopeasant on December 10, 2010 at 8:43 AM
I have just noticed that in the Time article she also talks about audit of the federal government. She went there. Dude!!!!
promachus on December 10, 2010 at 8:57 AM
To put it another way why Obama is not guaranteed re-election in 2012 let me use a football analogy.
Suppose you are a team that gets the ball back on a punt with two minutes left to go in the game. You are behind by 6 points. You need to score a TD to win the game. You proceed to march the ball down the field until you hit the red zone with about 30 seconds left to go in the game.
On the surface it appears you will score. Many of the sports media members think that who get caught up in the euphoria of the game. They neglect to look at their notes. If they had they would have seen that the QB is severely flawed, that his passer rating in the end zone is far below average, that the team has not run the ball into the end zone in several games and that the QB has thrown for more interceptions in the red zone than any other QB in the league in the last two years.
Sure enough the next play the QB throws into double coverage and has his pass picked off.
Simply, Obama is severely flawed as well, but many pundits want to ignore or discount these flaws and instead focus on the flaws of the Republicans, almost making it appear that it was the GOP who lost 63 seats in the House and not the Democrats.
Claiming Obama is a cinch to win re-election is like predicting after the Allies landed on Omaha Beach on D-Day that the Germans were still bound to prevail and win the war.
The huge victory by the GOP on November 2nd was equivalent to the D-Day landing. It fundamentally altered the political landscape. If you really think Obama is in the catbird seat right now, then you are delusional as Hitler was thinking that he could still win the war after the Allies began to move deeper into France in the summer of 1944.
Yes, Hitler could have won the war if he had developed the atomic bomb. But conventional means of warfare at the time was not going to stop the allied advance.
And that goes for Obama as well. Imho, he will have to go “nuclear” on the GOP to win in 2012. Conventional political gimmicks or prosaic MSM propaganda are not going to save his hide.
And finally do you really believe that Obama could go “nuclear” politically on Sarah Palin without her going “nuclear” on him as well? If there is one thing the Left is afraid of-Palin has a lot more firepower in her little finger than Obama has in both his hands.
technopeasant on December 10, 2010 at 9:02 AM
This is what Ryan and Palin are delusional about.
As for the new Tea party candidates they will be irrelevant, made so by the leadership. These new members can do nothing without the leadership. A I stated very clearly:
The Repubs have already folded. The 37% of the “white” vote you mention will readily switch back to Obama when they see how incompetent the Repubs truly are with no core principles if this first vote is any indication.
I warned about this Repub leadership back in 2005 and along with a few others predicted they would, deservedly so, lose in 2006 and 2008. Only the Tea party saved them in 2010. This first vote shows they have learned nothing. The current Dem outrage, the F bomb vs Obama is Pelosi’s kabuki theatre to get her boondoggles passed. It wasn’t only a couple of weeks ago the Repub leadership was boasting ethanol was dead. Within a week every repub will be voting for it!
A piece of advice for you–keep an eye on your delusion kool aide you drink as regards Repubs and Obama.
patrick neid on December 10, 2010 at 9:07 AM
I hate to break it to you but most of us have been aware of the hazards of D.C. and both parties for quite some time. Although we appreciate you cluing us in. The important thing is that we don’t keep quiet and I doubt that’s the plan for many of us.
Cindy Munford on December 10, 2010 at 9:16 AM
Even a slow boat to socialism eventually gets there.
Vashta.Nerada on December 10, 2010 at 9:31 AM
Right you are and that is Sarah Palin’s primary appeal as to the Presidency and in any other capacity in our nation (public or private).
AND that is Barack Obama’s overwhelming liability, that his “core convictions” remain as mushy, hidden, concealed and dubious as anyone’s ever could be — does anyone actually know WHAT he believes, WHO he is? He’s not candid, he’s not “available,” he’s as likely to leave others stranded than he is to pick a pocket or pose as a cheerleader.
Palin’s OP-ED in the WSJ is a substantial one. And it’s great to hear her endorse Paul Ryan, someone I’ve always considered real talent to lead.
About QUESTION 2 (Senior vote, attracted or foiled by Palin/Ryan’s positions on entitlements)…
What I think is that Seniors today see the reality of the time-clock on both Social Security and Medicare, though, granted, there is so much misinformation on both from continually dubious sources (again, like Obama) that it’s difficult to know just what to believe other than we can rely on being lied to by the political element while they manage to routinely pony-up billions to fund their own pet projects and lobbyists.
But, something has to be done to effect (begin to effect) permanent changes to retirement and medical care for the fixed-income ages (55 and over, 65 and over, varies). Everyone who is paying attention sees Obamacare as a ripoff if not enslavement of future generations and no “seniors” want to see that happen, so a candidate (Palin, Ryan, anyone else) who comes up with sound ideas that are practically able to be implemented now to effect our future needs and requirements will be taken seriously by Seniors as everyone else.
The GOP shouldn’t fear the Senior vote if and when these issues are discussed IF the GOP can discuss them sincerely. We’ve all seen abundant proof from the Left that they can’t (won’t) discuss these things sincerely so the GOP is already ahead.
Lourdes on December 10, 2010 at 9:34 AM
My WORD!
What have ‘we’ done without you?@?!@?#?#%R@#@fasdf
Comment more often so I can keep my thoughts pure.
Inanemergencydial on December 10, 2010 at 9:38 AM
Weird, very weird.
The “core principles” appeal to voters, as to the Presidency, as to ANY win of that Office, is based upon a candidate, not a party — party comes in second or even resentfully as to voter appeal when and if a candidate is accepted as having “core principles” and the principles that appeal. They either have it or they don’t and Palin has it. Obama does not.
Obama sold himself, or, rather, was sold to needy people (emotionally vulnerable people that I’d say populate the Left more than any other sort of voter) as “orator.” He’s been lauded as being a great performer, no one can argue with his ability to pose and perform and enact prepared material really well, but he lacks credibility as a President, as a leader otherwise: no one can ever rely on anything he believes because he seems to believe whatever “works” for the best performance. Meaning, he is artificial.
Palin’s appeal is that, like her or as some on the Left even “hate” her, you know what she’s thinking, what she believes in, what her principles are and she continues to be someone who is balanced very well in accepting herself and those principles: she’s a successful individual on her own merits, proves repeatedly that she knows what she believes and why and remains confident in that process. That’s the presence of someone who has questioned, doubted and arrived at beliefs that are well understood — in other words, “core principles”.
I’d like to see our nation get on with the process of getting on with the future. I can’t see taking the Democratic Party, all their weighted baggage of Socialist-this and Marxist-that and Resentment Incorporated with Tides and all the rest of their box of rocks, with us into this new century. Palin is, to the contrary, a breath of fresh air and the GOP would be very wise to get behind her.
Lourdes on December 10, 2010 at 9:46 AM
I think Obama’s nasty smear — “the GOP are hostage-takers” — after his spate of similarly spiteful lies about “Republicans”, is Obama TRYING (pitifully) his very own community-organizing, street-churlish, spitting tongue jive. In other words, his rendition of “going nuclear” and it comes off as being vapid, weak, little.
I agree about your confidence in Palin’s ability to aim straight and make her target, by comparison.
My one and only request at this point in the political phase toward 2012 is that Sarah Palin try, please try, to avoid the screechy voice. It really hurts my ears, it’s not a personal snide about her, but her voice just hurts my ears.
Lourdes on December 10, 2010 at 9:53 AM
The problem is: the Republicans (except for Ryan and a couple others) are in a race to see how quickly they can eff things up before the new year. They didn’t learn any more from November than the Democrats did.
It’s just about third party time.
Mr. Grump on December 10, 2010 at 9:53 AM
We already know the positives and negatives of Sarah Palin when it comes to defeating Obama. Most importantly, we have already seen all the lies and propaganda against her by the left.
But we still do not know how the Dems will attack other potential nominees. In a fiery political climate of 2012, “surprise” attacks and memes by the libs will be very risky.
In that respect, IMHO, Palin’s standing/position in 2012 is more advantageous compared to other potential nominees.
TheAlamos on December 10, 2010 at 10:05 AM
The Ryan Plan WILL reduce the deficit and save the nation. Thus far, I haven’t been a huge supporter of it because it still uses some socialism to achieve the goal of deficit reduction. I wasn’t happy wiith the “means testing” in Medicare … and some other things.
Whatever …
The “Honda Plan” was simply to pick an age cutoff – and say “You guys don’t get Medicare and Social Security” … try to recoup those guys for the money they’ve put into SS … and tell them they’re on their own. I also wanted to deport every illegal alien and cut off all funding for BS stuff like the NPR and NEA – and reduce the federal government by 50% or more by eliminating departments like the DoE (both of them), and shutting down agencies like the ATF. This would have put a hard burden on people to find ways to take care of themselves in their old age, but it would have probably helped revive the family unit (family has a greater role when Uncle Sugar isn’t caring for people) and it would given Americans a lot of liberty – which has eroded over the last 100 years. Less government equals more liberty. The Honda Plan would have damn sure solved every spending problem this nation has.
But really? Who’s going to support MY plan?
I guess I need to “move to the center here” a bit.
Soooo … yeah – Okay, I’m with Palin on the Ryan Plan – because it DOES solve the problem – which is something the deficit commission didn’t do. Am I happy about all the plan? No. Does my happiness take precidence over the financial solvency of my grandkids (unborn – yet who will be broke from day one?) …. Nope.
So let’s saddle up and move this thing out – maybe tweak in some “Honda Plan” stuff along the way.
Palin has just become the FIRST Presidential hopeful to actually address the issue of entitlement reform.
None other has done it.
HondaV65 on December 10, 2010 at 10:13 AM
Again WHITE VOTERS need a damned good reason to re-enter the tent of a Marxist African-American. And WHITE GUILT isn’t going to save the Messiah again. The angry WHITE man is not going to get any less angry by 2012.
For the Dems, the only way they can be assured of saving the Obama presidency is either:
1)Convincing the GOP primary voters to nominate Mike Huckabee as the “great white hope” for the GOP
2)Causing a viable 3rd party to form to bleed away white voters from the GOP and its nominee
technopeasant on December 10, 2010 at 10:22 AM
I like the Honda Plan.
Lourdes on December 10, 2010 at 10:41 AM
Nicely broken down. I agree completely.
DrAllecon on December 10, 2010 at 10:44 AM
Palin is both brilliant and correct, and carves out her place as the populist leader of our time and for 2012. This tax deal is a signal defeat for Republicans, and Palin knows it. Krauthammer has it exactly right above: in rushing to make this “deal,” the GOP gave Obama just what he wanted: a second stimulus and a golden wedge issue against the angry and irrational Left. If this passes, Republicans have made a mockery of their own redemption as fiscal hawks and completely trashed the tea party.
rrpjr on December 10, 2010 at 10:46 AM
I tend to agree with her, although I can’t see that type of compromise was feasible 3 weeks to go in the year.
However, there was a funny moment. Morning Joe, who has made a point of sneering at Palin repeatedly, asked in the most sanctimonious voice he could muster, “Who is recommending (and it was pretty much this roadmap)? Buchanan said, “Paul Ryan is.
No mention of Palin, of course. :)
AnninCA on December 10, 2010 at 10:51 AM
HondaV65 on December 10, 2010 at 10:13 AM
I like the Honda plan. The way things are going, I already feel pretty certain that I won’t see a penny of SS or medicare by the time I retire. If I could opt out of the ponzi scheme right now, I would consider that a pretty generous offer.
bitsy on December 10, 2010 at 11:05 AM
That is just all kinds of awesome.
bitsy on December 10, 2010 at 11:06 AM
By the same token, I’m moving toward the Palin camp. I have been critical of her in the past, but she scored a lot of points with me thanks to this. As you say, she’s the first presidential hopeful to address entitlement spending and that’s a very, very big deal. If no one else follows suit, I’ll have no choice but to support her.
Caiwyn on December 10, 2010 at 11:10 AM
Oh gosh, I don’t think you need to be that dismal. I think the age will rise.
And maybe the plan structure will change so that you can put some of your money into private plans.
But, beware. This has been the siren call for years, and as someone who lost her shirt in the private stock market not once, but twice, it’s truly a siren call.
AnninCA on December 10, 2010 at 11:11 AM
Well, Palin is the only potential candidate to actually be working hard.
I sure don’t see Romney doing much other than going on Letterman to make fun of Palin.
AnninCA on December 10, 2010 at 11:12 AM
Huckleberry has some cheesy petition to repeal the healthScare bill on my TV every night about five or so.
Too bad I don’t trust that he really believes or would do it.
dhunter on December 10, 2010 at 11:29 AM
So Sarah is everywhere acting like the leader we need while Huck, Newt, Mitt, TPaw and whomever else are hidin in the weeds. Buying off party officials in early primary States?
How can I trust any of these guys to be effective at anything when they haven’t for the last two years?
When they have been absent on every socialist agenda item the Progressives have put up there.
dhunter on December 10, 2010 at 11:32 AM
I don’t know that it’s all that dismal an idea, really… those of us who are pretty sure we’ll never see a dime of Social Security are working hard to make sure we have a retirement of our own, funded by the fruits of our own hard work and investment.
I would gladly take the hit of being the cutoff generation who had to pay into social security but doesn’t receive benefits, if it means that we could finally be rid of this wretched ponzi scheme forever.
Caiwyn on December 10, 2010 at 11:33 AM
AP, please stop with these dumba$$ exit questions. Please.
1. Why would seniors (55+) vote against Palin when this provision affects non-seniors (<55)?
2. Why is a voucher system a bad idea? It ensures control of costs and services covered/provided returns to the patient.
Miss_Anthrope on December 10, 2010 at 11:35 AM
I truly like him, but I don’t think he’s got the fundraising capability to mount a real campaign.
I think he’ll run. He’s sort of the Nader of the Right, eh?
But honestly, I like the guy. I often think he’s articulate and rather sweet, too. I like him way better than Romney.
I’m interested mostly is why the GOP hasn’t found my type. I would probably vote Obama before Romney.
It’s not that Romney is so evil or anything. I just think he’s such a country club ken doll type that he has zero credibility with me.
I think he’d be the worst of all worlds, so I’d probably go for a Dem president and a GOP congress before I’d vote for him.
I don’t see many polls showing my type speaking up. But I can’t believe I’m alone in this.
AnninCA on December 10, 2010 at 11:35 AM
Well, I’m convinced, personally, that we collectively endorse SSI.
Nevermind the old school GOP types.
I think we’re looking for portability at this point. And that’s a smart voter concern, too. The old days are gone. We need a portable retirement program, with SOME flexibility.
But here’s the crunch. Do not ask for total freedom, or you’re really right back to where we are today…..zero. Wall St. boyz will beat you, and you’ll end up with empty pockets worse than DC boyz can figure out how to rip you off.
It’s time for we middle-class workers to get wily, and no, it’s not unions, either. They are running a close second in ripping people off.
But, we all need to insist that we do deserve to get something back for our own personal investments into retirement.
Otherwise? We’re headed back to stuffing cash in a sock under our beds.
AnninCA on December 10, 2010 at 11:39 AM
AnninCA on December 10, 2010 at 11:11 AM
Anyone my age who is planning on recieving SS is a fool.
bitsy on December 10, 2010 at 11:43 AM
I think most people believe that SS will run out just after they finish collecting from it. And they don’t really CARE what happens, as long as they get their money.
hawksruleva on December 10, 2010 at 11:44 AM
I think this shows a lot of courageous leadership on the Governor’s part.
sDs61678 on December 10, 2010 at 11:51 AM
No Ann. We need to insist that we get to keep what we earn, invest it as we individually see fit, and accept responsibility for our own choices. In the meantime, some of us need to quit insisting that they “deserve” money they didn’t earn.
bitsy on December 10, 2010 at 11:57 AM
Who BUT Palin are actively attacking on all fronts in the Presidential Hopefull arena? Right, she stands alone right now.
Romney? Crickets.
Huckabee? Minor chatter, nothing of substance.
Pence? He’s holding fire for some reason.
Others? They’re busy with their fingers in the air or handling their current office’s duties.
I don’t see Sarah Palin losing any enthusiasm or energy moving forward. In fact, the snowball is in full roll down the hill, gaining size, speed and strength.
By primary time, she could very well be unstoppable IF she decides to run.
ANd I think she will.
And I think she should.
AND I think Paul Ryan would definitely be a very good augment to her candidacy should he decide to accept an offer for the Veep slot from her.
Examine the Bush/Cheney teaming as compared to a Palin/Ryan teaming.
Palin is MORE conservative than Bush is/was, and MORE charismatic than Bush is/was.
Ryan is as competent a wonky Veep running mate as Cheney was to Bush, but Ryan has no negative baggage personality wise as Cheney does/did, as in his snarling attack dog demeanor.
Bush needed the snarling attack dog to offset his laidback Texan Good ole boy personna.
Palin has those qualities and exercises them when she needs to, only with the feminine flair which is disarming to an all male opponent teaming like Obaammy/Biteme. A plus I believe.
Win/win as I see it.
Problem is though, the bluenoses in the Repubican party upper stratta will undoubtedly try to derail a coupling such as Palin/Ryan. Unlike Reagan who ended up having to accept GHWBush as a running mate or risk being destroyed by the R elites, Palin has the chutspa and momentum to not have to accept a Veep running mate that doesn’t augment her capabilites as she has been thinking AND working outside the box since the end of the failed presidential election cycle.
Something the estab R party elites haven’t evidenced in the last 10-16 years in my opinion.
It is my most humble opinion that should Sarah decide the country needs her in the Oval Office, it will be hers for the taking.
My overly active fantasy mindset also leans toward LANDSLIDE, but that may not be what happens. More than a plurality? Eh. I think she can win over even her current detractors on the Indy side who are iffy or on the fence. And she’ll need them that’s for sure.
44Magnum on December 10, 2010 at 12:14 PM
Ann,
If I may ask, how much of your investment did you lose? If you’ve lost twice, doesn’t it stand to reason you’ve managed to recover your investment back, and may recoup 100% of your losses within 10-20 years?
You could invest in land or gold, which manages do do well when the dollar doesn’t, but anyone investing in the market for the long-term will reoup their invement and gain in time for retirement.
Here’s why I ask:
With each generation retiring in the SS system, it takes longer and longer just to recoup their investment.
In 1991, it took 1-2 years. Everything after that has been gravy.
By 2035, a retiree aged 67 1/2 must live another 40 years just to recoup their investment.
Some ethnic groups fare worse if their life expectancy is under 62. The most their family receives is the $250 to pay for the funeral.
In fact, it’s not even an entitlement. In 1960, the Supreme Court decided the taxpayer was not entitled to SS.
So let’s just accept reality here. We should call it what it is: a tax and a Ponzi scheme (only a reverse one, since each generation has more seniors and fewer contributors).
As long as there are no restrictions and a disclaimer the taxpayer alone bears responsibility for how the voucher is invested and effects, I would be happy to sign up.
In fact, let’s do the following:
1. Voluntary to opt out of SS
2. Voucher method
3. Employee SS contributions only (employer contributions fund SS)
4. No restictions on investments, within reason (mutual funds, stocks, annuities, real property, precious metals, money market accounts, savings accounts)
5. Can opt back into SS during first 3 years; after 3 years opt out becomes permanent
6. Government not responsible for any redress, but participants and participating accountholders sign arbitration or similar agreement for redress procedures
This general layout was analyzed in 1998 by Heritage Foundation, and deemed a solid solution, even under bear market conditions. That’s primarily due to the fact that contributors fare better in the market at its worst than in SS at its best (unless you look at 1941, when it was just free money…that doesn’t count).
Miss_Anthrope on December 10, 2010 at 12:14 PM
Sorry, Ann…two flaws to your statement:
1. It’s my money, so they shouldn’t have it in the first place, especially if it’s an investment for retirement (which it’s not, as it’s IOUs sitting there).
If it’s my retirement at stake, then I should direct how it’s invested (right now it’s not), when I can withdraw (right now it’s 67 1/2 at the earliest), and how much I can withdraw (right now it’s set by SS).
2. None of us is entitled to SS. That’s what the Supreme Court said, back in 1960. And since it’s a tax that I will never see, I’d like them to A. quit calling it an entitlement and start calling it the (payroll) tax that it is, and B. reduce my payroll tax enough for me to divert into real retirement products. THAT’S when I’ll expect something ‘back’ from SS.
Miss_Anthrope on December 10, 2010 at 12:26 PM
I like the plan. my husband and I have planned for our retirement and for the care of our daughter who has been diagnosed with autism (you know, plan for the worse and hope for the best) and nothing in our planning includes government programs such as Social Security because we’ve never believed it would be there for us or if it’s still around it will be means tested. We pay in but see it as us paying for those who’ve retired already.
CCRWM on December 10, 2010 at 12:56 PM
Good for her, and Ryan. Americans expect their leaders to lead from the front. Where’s the rest of the pack on the Ryan Roadmap, hiding behind her skirts?
motionview on December 10, 2010 at 1:52 PM
Some atheists and all socialists think of religion as the opiate of the masses. They are wrong.
The true opiate for the masses is public welfare. Like an opiate, it is used initially to relieve pain and suffering. Like an opiate, one can easily become addicted to it. Like an opiate, heavy use reduces one’s productive capacity. Like an opiate, breaking dependency on it is difficult and often painful. Like an opiate, it’s purveyors use that dependency to control the users.
The Honda plan is to poison the poppies an let the addicts recover or die. It will break the dependency cycle, but the throes of withdrawal in the dependent class may shake the nation apart.
The Ryan plan is methadone. An imperfect way to break the dependency cycle, yet better than the current path to squalor and slavery.
Random Numbers (Brian Epps) on December 10, 2010 at 2:53 PM
Comment at the WSJ op-ed:
Sarah Palin’s biggest knock is that she is not a serious politician. Paul Ryan’s biggest supposed asset is that he is a very serious politician. From this moment on, every single person running for President in 2012 will have to have a plan for long-run entitlement reform. If Palin is perceived as more serious than you, you have already lost. You don’t have more charisma, you don’t have more of a cult following. She just bet the house, and bet it early. In this game of poker, either every other candidate (on both sides) will call, or fold. Regardless of whether or not she runs, or whether or not she wins, this debate has now shifted. And to all of our benefit.
Nothing more needs to be said.
NoNails on December 10, 2010 at 4:01 PM
That was very, very good.
On the money.
This is why she is earning a fair shot.
Brian1972 on December 10, 2010 at 5:17 PM
I would go to a perfect candidate in 2012.
The crop? Romney, Huck, Pawlenty, Gingrich, Thune, Pence,…
Palin.
No perfect candidate, IMHO.
But I choose somebody who is more close to my principles and aspirations as an American, more sincere, and a real fighter.
That’s Sarah Palin.
DEMINT/PALIN/REAGAN/PALIN/DEMINT 2012!
I’ll fight til the end.
TheAlamos on December 10, 2010 at 6:50 PM
Whoa, pardner. Let’s not get out ahead of ourselves. The latest Bloomberg poll shows the following:
“The public wants Congress to keep its hands off entitlements such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, a Bloomberg National Poll shows. They oppose cuts in most other major domestic programs and defense.”
Uh,oh! First, approximately 80% of the USG budget finances the entitlement and defense programs. Second, even if “the rich” marginal tax rates returned to pre-2003 levels, the total collections from this source would only reduce the fiscal deficit by 4.4% (from Denninger at The Market Ticker).
Rubber, meet road! The fiscal deficit, assuming the U.S. public really is serious about reducing it, CANNOT be reduced without serious limits on spending, which can only be effective if entitlements and (excuse for being blunt) defense programs are not just reformed, but restructured.
As it now stands, the U.S. public does not understand the deep doo doo we are in as a nation. Until a major – and I mean major – education campaign is launched and sustained the public will baulk at serious efforts to drain the fiscal swamp. Essentially, we will have to accept a trip to the metaphorical dentist for a tooth extraction, without novocaine!
Who is prepared to take this fight on? And what politician will be willing to fall on his/her sword to do the heavy lifting? Frankly, I am not optimistic.
boqueronman on December 10, 2010 at 8:25 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3