Santorum criticizes Ronald Reagan on Social Security

posted at 2:45 pm on January 5, 2012 by Tina Korbe

Gotta say, every time I read a headline that makes me think I’ll like Rick Santorum less, I just find myself liking him more. When I came across this article in The Huffington Post, I cringed to think Santorum might have taken a cheap shot at conservatives’ most revered modern hero. But he did no such thing. Instead, he made a valid point — that Reagan, for all his many victories, still established a troublesome precedent of quickly “fixing” Social Security instead of meaningfully reforming the program. The relevant excerpt:

Santorum outlined his stance on social security at the event, spending a good 10 minutes on the issue. In the process, he took aim at a revered Republican figure, knocking former President Ronald Reagan’s 1983 Social Security deal. Santorum criticized Reagan’s decision to raise both the retirement age and taxes, linking those choices to the nation’s current fiscal crisis.

“I love Ronald Reagan, but if I would point to one thing during his administration that he did a serious wrong, it was this bill, it was this Social Security fix,” Santorum told the crowd. “He brought the idea of increasing taxes now, which is always what the left wants to do. Increase taxes now and reduce benefits later.”

To be fair, the George W. Bush presidency taught observers just how difficult meaningful Social Security reform will be — and SS will actually be the easiest of the Big Three entitlement programs to tackle. No doubt the appetite for reform in 1983 was even less than it is now. Nevertheless, Santorum’s willingness to speak negatively about Reagan demonstrates his comfort level with his own core convictions — which, as I wrote this morning, undoubtedly include a belief that we need to reform entitlements, if not a belief that we need to eliminate earmarks.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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: 1 2

RINO!!!

angryed on January 5, 2012 at 2:48 PM

Practically everything a Pennsylvania Senator does is explained with a Pennsylvania voter demographic chart. That’s just survival.

RBMN on January 5, 2012 at 2:49 PM

He also has a strong message on pushing for a Balanced Budget Amendment.Of course you would never hear it if you had to depend on pundits for your information, because discussing social issues is a way to drive a wedge between Republicans, who’da thunk it?

txmomof6 on January 5, 2012 at 2:50 PM

What’s audacious is the lengths lib bloggers will go to undermine Conservatives.

rayra on January 5, 2012 at 2:51 PM

Ronald Reagan also had to deal with Democratic-controlled House of Representatives his entire 8 years in office.

And for the last 2 years of Reagan’s second term, he also had to deal with a Democratic-contralled Senate.

Imagine what Reagan could have done with a Republican House and Senate…

ITguy on January 5, 2012 at 2:51 PM

Practically everything a Pennsylvania Senator does is explained with a Pennsylvania voter demographic chart. That’s just survival.

RBMN on January 5, 2012 at 2:49 PM

Ooops. I didn’t realize he just said it now. That’s worse.

RBMN on January 5, 2012 at 2:52 PM

Not that I like Rick, but when did it become an original sin to disagree with Ronald? He was far from perfect.

Notorious GOP on January 5, 2012 at 2:52 PM

Santorum shows a “comfort level with his own core convictions.” Excellent!

I’m a libertarian, though. Santorum says “I am not a libertarian.” I don’t know what he means by that.

anotherJoe on January 5, 2012 at 2:52 PM

Instead, he made a valid point — that Reagan, for all his many victories, still established a troublesome precedent of quickly “fixing” Social Security instead of meaningfully reforming the program.

Social security was going bankrupt. Reagan raised the payroll tax contributions and increased the full retirement age. This was not “quick fix” nor a hastily thought out plan. I’m not at all impressed and I’m not sure why you are, Tina.

ZGMF_Freedom on January 5, 2012 at 2:52 PM

Agree with Santorum on this. One of Reagan’s biggest mistakes. But I’ll go further and say Soc Sec should be phased out altogether. The government has no business in the retirement business, not to mention it being unconstitutional.

bgibbs1000 on January 5, 2012 at 2:52 PM

Not a valid criticism. Reagan couldn’t act like a dictator like Obama does, he had too much respect for the Constitution and the nation. He had to have a compromise deal with Tip O’Neill, who was a far more effective Speaker than Gingrich ever was, in order to get something done.

The deal he got was the best he could do. Remember, he was still fighting to upgrade our defenses which the hapless Carter had allowed to deteriorate, and the economy was still struggling in 1983.

Reagan would have rather made stronger reforms, but they simply were not possible in that environment.

Santorum may fool those of you who weren’t born at the time, but some of us were there, ‘member?

Adjoran on January 5, 2012 at 2:53 PM

“To be fair, the George W. Bush presidency taught observers just how difficult meaningful Social Security reform will be —…”

Now I wonder why that was…?

Seven Percent Solution on January 5, 2012 at 2:54 PM

Hey Tina!
How about the headline that said
“Rick Santorum endorses Arlen Spectre!”
Ya’ like that one too?
Brit Hume mentioned yesterday that he laughs everytime Santorum or Gingrich mention “establishment candidate” as a pejorative… because the are arguably much more establishment than Romney. Newt and Rick have been in DC for DECADES!! Stop drinking the Kool-Aid!

therambler on January 5, 2012 at 2:54 PM

It’s a fair criticism. I’m not sure it’s worth the gotcha headlines to invoke Reagan specifically, but maybe the context made it an obvious thing to do.

I’d like to see Santorum word his policy-bites without pointing out where he would criticize Reagan, as it’s just impolitic to come off as rejecting the Reagan model.

He certainly shouldn’t be harangued over this. Although he probably will be.

J.E. Dyer on January 5, 2012 at 2:55 PM

Ronald Reagan also had to deal with Democratic-controlled House of Representatives his entire 8 years in office.
And for the last 2 years of Reagan’s second term, he also had to deal with a Democratic-contralled Senate.
Imagine what Reagan could have done with a Republican House and Senate…
ITguy on January 5, 2012 at 2:51 PM

when we use this analogy with Mitt and massachusetts we get crucified

gerrym51 on January 5, 2012 at 2:56 PM

Agree with Santorum on this. One of Reagan’s biggest mistakes. But I’ll go further and say Soc Sec should be phased out altogether. The government has no business in the retirement business, not to mention it being unconstitutional.

bgibbs1000 on January 5, 2012 at 2:52 PM

People love social security because you get out a lot more than you put in. How do you propose to end a program that people love? Human nature is precisely the reason why pyramid schemes still exist and why social security is the 3rd rail of politics.

ZGMF_Freedom on January 5, 2012 at 2:56 PM

And I remember in 1985-86 timeframe that even the ‘fix’ wasn’t goint to fix anything and that the system was going to be insolvent by 2050. Then it was 2030 around 1990. Then 2020 around 2001-2.

It went in the red last year, now not only eating its cash but cashing in its special bonds to drive up the debt even more.

Ronald Reagan didn’t follow the path of Coolidge to reduce the size of government… instead the thought was to restrict government by lower taxes. That hasn’t worked out as a theory, just the opposite as the booming economy enabled a larger government. You don’t cut government by cutting taxes you cut government by cutting government.

I will vote for a candidate who actually dares to say that.

And that the entitlement system is a ponzi scheme beyond ‘reform’ because every time we ‘reform’ it, it then forms into something worse. That is a broken system that the government isn’t supposed to be running. The audacity of a government telling you when you can retire is horrific. Tyring to make it work is driving the Nation down a nasty road that is then fuelling the other ‘entitlements’.

Weaning off of these things cannot be done over 20 years, a batch of policians will come in to screw it up, again.

Under 10 years is still iffy.

You want it gone? Cold Turkey.

We DO have history to go by on this and when you need politicians to make a hard decision they DON’T DO IT.

ajacksonian on January 5, 2012 at 2:57 PM

Agree with Santorum on this. One of Reagan’s biggest mistakes. But I’ll go further and say Soc Sec should be phased out altogether. The government has no business in the retirement business, not to mention it being unconstitutional.

obviously you are not close to retirement age

gerrym51 on January 5, 2012 at 2:57 PM

Social security was going bankrupt. Reagan raised the payroll tax contributions and increased the full retirement age. This was not “quick fix” nor a hastily thought out plan. I’m not at all impressed and I’m not sure why you are, Tina.

ZGMF_Freedom on January 5, 2012 at 2:52 PM

If it wasn’t sustainable after, then it was a ‘fix’. Perhaps that is all Reagan could have done but that doesn’t change what happened.

sharrukin on January 5, 2012 at 2:57 PM

Practically everything a Pennsylvania Senator does is explained with a Pennsylvania voter demographic chart. That’s just survival.

RBMN on January 5, 2012 at 2:49 PM

And yet the Mittbots excuse their boy from governing to the left of Obama by “well it is MA you know, what choice did he have”?

Newt sat on a couch with Nancy….COMMUNIST!! Santorum criticizes Reagan…COMMUNIST!! Perry gives in-state tuition to Hispanics (which make up 35% of Texas)….TRAITOR!!

Mitt raises taxes, implements Cap N Trade, Romneycare, anti-gun laws. Hey man, what could he do, it is Massachusetts dontcha know?

It’s ridiculous.

angryed on January 5, 2012 at 2:57 PM

Gotta say, every time I read a headline that makes me think I’ll like Rick Santorum less, I just find myself liking him more.

We should be willing to allow debate without our own circle – how else can we fix past mistakes we may have made?

Chip on January 5, 2012 at 2:58 PM

gerrym51 on January 5, 2012 at 2:56 PM

But that doesn’t mean Reagan rolled over for them like mitt did

Flapjackmaka on January 5, 2012 at 2:58 PM

He also has a strong message on pushing for a Balanced Budget Amendment.Of course you would never hear it if you had to depend on pundits for your information, because discussing social issues is a way to drive a wedge between Republicans, who’da thunk it?

txmomof6 on January 5, 2012 at 2:50 PM

Indeed.

Fiscal conservatism has been winning elections for decades.

Fiscal conservatism is a large part of the reason why Reagan was elected and re-elected.

Fiscal conservatism is why Republicans took over the House and Senate in the 1994 elections.

Believe it or not, fiscal conservatism is why Democrats took over the House and Senate in the 2006 elections. Here’s what Pelosi and the 2006 Democrats promised:

With integrity, civility and fiscal discipline, our New Direction for America will use commonsense principles to address the aspirations and fulfill the hopes and dreams of all Americans. That is our promise to the American people.

Our federal budget should be a statement of our national values. One of those values is responsibility. Democrats are committed to ending years of irresponsible budget policies that have produced historic deficits. Instead of piling trillions of dollars of debt onto our children and grandchildren, we will restore “Pay As You Go” budget discipline.

Budget discipline has been abandoned by the Bush Administration and its Republican congressional majorities. Congress under Republican control has turned a projected $5.6 trillion 10-year surplus at the end of the Clinton years into a nearly $3 trillion deficit– including the four worst deficits in the history of America. The nation’s debt ceiling has been raised four times in just five years to more than $8.9 trillion. Nearly half of our nation’s record debt is owned by foreign countries including China and Japan. Without a return to fiscal discipline, the foreign countries that make our computers, our clothing and our toys will soon be making our foreign policy. Deficit spending is not just a fiscal problem – it’s a national security issue as well.

Our New Direction is committed to “Pay As You Go” budgeting – no more deficit spending.

Fiscal conservatism is why Republicans (who were blamed for TARP) lost and Democrats won in 2008.

And fiscal conservatism is why Republicans took over the House, gained seats in the Senate, and flipped legislative houses across the country in the 2010 elections. Why? Becuase the four worst deficits in the history of America now belonged to Democrats, not Republicans. The electorate woke up to Pelosi’s lies.

Fiscal conservatism will win 2012.

And that is why the media doesn’t want to talk about fiscal conservatism. They only want to talk about social conservatism, because they know that is a more divisive issue.

Our nominee can absolutely be a social conservative like Santorum. But the FOCUS of this election cycle MUST be fiscal conservatism.

ITguy on January 5, 2012 at 2:59 PM

If this story is true and gets out, it will be the end of Rick’s campaign, any PA readers who can verify?

Rick Santorum’s PA Residency Remains Issue

He has two homes in two states, has claimed residency in both this year—and his newest home in Virginia has a purchase price of $0 listed, opening the door to more questions.

The full article is long and covers several issues, does this explain why he lost the PA race by such a wide margin?

http://chestnuthill.patch.com/articles/santorum-iowa

This story wasn’t published until caucus day, is it being picked up in NH?

beacon on January 5, 2012 at 3:00 PM

If it wasn’t sustainable after, then it was a ‘fix’. Perhaps that is all Reagan could have done but that doesn’t change what happened.

sharrukin on January 5, 2012 at 2:57 PM

You can’t “fix” a pyramid scheme. All you can do is to delay the inevitable. Reagan’s reforms pushed out social security’s failure date much further into the future. Again, Santorum’s ambiguous charge against Reagan is without substance. I’m not impressed.

ZGMF_Freedom on January 5, 2012 at 3:00 PM

I voted for Reagan twice.

But Santorum is correct.

However, one must consider the time and the mindset. In those days, no one thought the a major reform of SS was needed – quick fixes would do the job. Reagan was a captive of the thinking of his time just like anyone else.

Medicare was the same way because those enacting it were captives of their times and the thinking in the mid-60′s and thought 1965 medical costs would remain in the future.

Loved Reagan. He almost personally won the Cold War even with Demoncrat traitors do all possible to stab him in the back. But Santorum is correct on this one. Outmoded thinking was involved.

Horace on January 5, 2012 at 3:00 PM

The reason that it’s so unfair to criticize Reagan for things like this is, compared to today, the federal debt was NOTHING!! Would that we only had Reagan’s 1984 budget problems.

RBMN on January 5, 2012 at 3:01 PM

RINO!!!

angryed on January 5, 2012 at 2:48 PM

I enjoyed the irony of this post.

Red Cloud on January 5, 2012 at 3:01 PM

Santorum wants to ban condoms? No sex for fun with Rick. If you want to spend the whole general election talking about Santorum’s strange social conservative views instead of Obama’s destrucition of our economy, then make Rick the nominee. Totally unelectable. A waste of time and space. Hell, he can’t even win his own state.

Kaffa on January 5, 2012 at 3:01 PM

Then how could he, in good conscience, vote for a Medicare prescription drug program? Why didn’t he propose reforming it and making it more affordable rather than sending the spending further out of control? Hypocrisy.

bopbottle on January 5, 2012 at 3:02 PM

When I came across this article in The Huffington Post, I cringed to think Santorum might have taken a cheap shot at conservatives’ most revered modern hero. But he did no such thing. Instead, he made a valid point — that Reagan, for all his many victories, still established a troublesome precedent of quickly “fixing” Social Security instead of meaningfully reforming the program.

Tina, if he didn’t take a cheap shot at Reagan, then why have you left the headline in a fashion that makes it sound like he did?

Bluray on January 5, 2012 at 3:02 PM

I wasn’t alive when Reagan was president. It would be nice if the GOP could explain to the younger voters what made Reagan great. However, the Republicans are too stupid to do that.

As for Rick Santorum…he was just lucky that the clock ran out when he did. He won’t be around much longer.

joekenha on January 5, 2012 at 3:03 PM

when we use this analogy with Mitt and massachusetts we get crucified

gerrym51 on January 5, 2012 at 2:56 PM

Even with a Democratic House and Senate, Ronald Reagan didn’t champion a massive healthcare bill.

In fact, Ronald Reagan had a long history of speaking out against socialized medicine.

ITguy on January 5, 2012 at 3:03 PM

Fixing Social Security, Medicare, & Medicaid will be as difficult as making the Mississippi River flow north. There are too many voters that will be affected by the “fix”. And the people that can fix them depend on these same voters to be re-elected. As we know, the first law of politics is to be re-elected.

Look at Greece. If all their debt were cancelled they still do not have enough tax revenue to run the government which includes huge entitlements. Guess what. They are still looking for a solution to the problem without too much change to entitlements. The people have taken to the streets at the mention of reform. Greece is a great laboratory experiment for us to see where we are headed.

dhugh on January 5, 2012 at 3:03 PM

Then how could he, in good conscience, vote for a Medicare prescription drug program? Why didn’t he propose reforming it and making it more affordable rather than sending the spending further out of control? Hypocrisy.

bopbottle on January 5, 2012 at 3:02 PM

Because people on welfare (Medicaid) were getting drug benefits while people who paid into the system (Medicare) were not. Try arguing against a disabled constituent that was taken off Medicaid and put on Medicare only to lose his drug coverage.

ZGMF_Freedom on January 5, 2012 at 3:05 PM

You can’t “fix” a pyramid scheme. All you can do is to delay the inevitable. Reagan’s reforms pushed out social security’s failure date much further into the future. Again, Santorum’s ambiguous charge against Reagan is without substance. I’m not impressed.

ZGMF_Freedom on January 5, 2012 at 3:00 PM

“He brought the idea of increasing taxes now, which is always what the left wants to do. Increase taxes now and reduce benefits later.”

How is this not what you are arguing?

sharrukin on January 5, 2012 at 3:05 PM

Point Santorum.

What say Mitte, er, excuse me, Mittbots don’t like unflattering nicknames in place of his real name, Willard, in response?

MNHawk on January 5, 2012 at 3:06 PM

I enjoyed the irony of this post.

Red Cloud on January 5, 2012 at 3:01 PM

Are you sure you understand what the word irony means?

I’ll give you credit though. You’re the first Mitt supporter in the history of HA to write more than 5 words without throwing out an ad hominem attack.

Congrats.

angryed on January 5, 2012 at 3:06 PM

The reason that it’s so unfair to criticize Reagan for things like this is, compared to today, the federal debt was NOTHING!! Would that we only had Reagan’s 1984 budget problems.

RBMN on January 5, 2012 at 3:01 PM

So then was Reagan truly a conservative or not? Things like this at least show he wasn’t ideologically pure. I think the reason it is important to bring topics like this up is because there are a lot of Republican and Conservative voters that need to actually understand Reagan’s record had flawed, because this deification of him by some is impacting the filter of candidates we find acceptable or not.

People keep talking about looking for “the next Reagan”.
That’s why this matters.

Bluray on January 5, 2012 at 3:07 PM

Would that we only had Reagan’s 1984 budget problems.

Now we have SS/medicare and the military using up all our revenues forcing us to borrow every single dollar it costs to run an ever expanding government. Reagan was the last to even attempt to do something about it. Where was Santorum’s legislation to fix our entitlement problems? Where was any in the last twentyfive years?

lowandslow on January 5, 2012 at 3:08 PM

I wasn’t alive when Reagan was president. It would be nice if the GOP could explain to the younger voters what made Reagan great. However, the Republicans are too stupid to do that.

As for Rick Santorum…he was just lucky that the clock ran out when he did. He won’t be around much longer.

joekenha on January 5, 2012 at 3:03 PM

The one thing that made President Reagan great is that he acted like a President. That gave others great confidence and trusted his leadership.

dhugh on January 5, 2012 at 3:08 PM

“I love Ronald Reagan, but if I would point to one thing during his administration that he did a serious wrong, it was this bill, it was this Social Security fix…”

How does Ricko stand on Ronald Reagan’s amnesty program…?

Seven Percent Solution on January 5, 2012 at 3:08 PM

Oh noes! Another HG Romney shill torpedoes The RWD!

The War Planner on January 5, 2012 at 3:08 PM

Gotta say, every time I read a headline that makes me think I’ll like Rick Santorum less, I just find myself liking him more.

Well, at least you’re open about your biases.

I hope some folks here remember a statement like that next time they try to claim that this site is just shilling for Romney.

Vyce on January 5, 2012 at 3:09 PM

Actually, I give Reagan props for what he did with Social Security. Oh sure, that wasn’t the ideal reform, but he was smart enough to see something needed to be done about it, and did the best he could with the situation.

And lets be clear, it wasn’t a good situation. A normal politician wouldn’t have had the political power to institute their agenda in his situation. The fact the Reagan managed to push so much of his agenda, shows us just how amazing a politician he really was.

His blend of principal, prowess, and pragmatism, was nothing short of amazing, and its a shame we haven’t seen more like him.

WolvenOne on January 5, 2012 at 3:09 PM

Our nominee can absolutely be a social conservative like Santorum. But the FOCUS of this election cycle MUST be fiscal conservatism.

ITguy on January 5, 2012 at 2:59 PM

+1000
Problem here is those Rs that fall into the media and Dem trap because they squirm and become uncomfortable when people express their religious beliefs out loud

txmomof6 on January 5, 2012 at 3:09 PM

Imagine what Reagan could have done with a Republican House and Senate…

ITguy on January 5, 2012 at 2:51 PM

You mean like what George W. Bush did with 6 years of a Republican House and Senate? (nothing on Soc. Security, passing Medicare D boondoggle…)

Your rose-colored glasses need polishing, pal.

gryphon202 on January 5, 2012 at 3:09 PM

I wasn’t alive when Reagan was president. It would be nice if the GOP could explain to the younger voters what made Reagan great. However, the Republicans are too stupid to do that.

As for Rick Santorum…he was just lucky that the clock ran out when he did. He won’t be around much longer.

joekenha on January 5, 2012 at 3:03 PM

Reagan understood what had truly made America great and exceptional, and even though America had hit some hard and dark times under the “malaise” of Carter, Reagan saw a bright morning in America again. I recommend that you start with this speech.

If you want more, let me know.

ITguy on January 5, 2012 at 3:10 PM

This is an excellent example of why I don’t vote for people for president who lack executive experience. Mr. Armchair President doesn’t have any executive experience so he doesn’t understand things such as pragmatism, negotiating, making the best deal you can. He only understands how to be partisan and create gridlock. You go to war with the army you’ve got, and Reagan had a Democratic-controlled Congress to contend with. Does Santorum think he wouldn’t have done more if he could have? Raising the retirement age is a key component of Paul Ryan’s plan to make SS solvent again so I don’t see how anyone can call it a fix. I’d love to see SS junked altogether, but other than the good doctor, I don’t see any of these clowns actually doing it once they’re in office. However, if Santorum gets elected (LOL) I fully expect to see it dismantled entirely by the time he leaves office. Since its so easy and all.

NoLeftTurn on January 5, 2012 at 3:10 PM

Santorum… A waste of time and space. Hell, he can’t even win his own state.

Kaffa on January 5, 2012 at 3:01 PM

You’re 100% correct. Nobody who loses a senate election in a landslide has any business running for president.

MA SENATE ELECTION 1994:

Kennedy 58%
Romney 41%

angryed on January 5, 2012 at 3:10 PM

What’s more offensive in this line of coordinated attacks against conservative Santorum by liberal bloggers is that Tuesday nt in hi squasi-victory speech in Iowa, Santorum was paying homage to Reagan. This sort of crappy opportunistic turnspeak gainsaying predicated on a soundbite by liberals scarcely 48hrs later is despicable. And dishonest, even if it does use a literal quote.
But I don’t expect liberals to grasp that. They’re stupid and grasping. All they are predicated on is short-term gain, by any means.

rayra on January 5, 2012 at 3:10 PM

Point Santorum.

How is it Point Santorum? The only people running that had any power to do anything about Social Security was Santorum, Gingrich and Paul. And they didn’t do a damn thing. Reagan at least did something.

lowandslow on January 5, 2012 at 3:10 PM

I’ll give you credit though. You’re the first Mitt supporter in the history of HA to write more than 5 words without throwing out an ad hominem attack.

Congrats.

angryed on January 5, 2012 at 3:06 PM

..hrumph! hrumph! hrumph! You clod! Yer mother wears combat boots!

The War Planner on January 5, 2012 at 3:11 PM

“He brought the idea of increasing taxes now, which is always what the left wants to do. Increase taxes now and reduce benefits later.”

How is this not what you are arguing?

sharrukin on January 5, 2012 at 3:05 PM

The other way is to cut benefits immediately. Have you ever talked to a notch baby? Long story short, it did not work out very well.

I see nothing wrong with raising contributions to a retirement plan and making it known well in advance that participants have to retire at an older age. Income tax and retirement contributions (“payroll tax” are different animals.

ZGMF_Freedom on January 5, 2012 at 3:11 PM

http://chestnuthill.patch.com/articles/santorum-iowa

beacon on January 5, 2012 at 3:00 PM

Interesting read, thanks for posting.

bopbottle on January 5, 2012 at 3:12 PM

Ronald Reagan also had to deal with Democratic-controlled House of Representatives his entire 8 years in office.
And for the last 2 years of Reagan’s second term, he also had to deal with a Democratic-contralled Senate.
Imagine what Reagan could have done with a Republican House and Senate…
ITguy on January 5, 2012 at 2:51 PM
when we use this analogy with Mitt and massachusetts we get crucified

gerrym51 on January 5, 2012 at 2:56 PM

Santy is young yet. We also have to look at what Santy had to deal with in Penn… the home of Rectum Specter and the late John mobster Murtha.

KOOLAID2 on January 5, 2012 at 3:12 PM

This is an excellent example of why I don’t vote for people for president who lack executive experience. Mr. Armchair President doesn’t have any executive experience so he doesn’t understand things such as pragmatism, negotiating, making the best deal you can. He only understands how to be partisan and create gridlock….
NoLeftTurn on January 5, 2012 at 3:10 PM

What a steaming pile of excrement. Santorum’s own terms in both House and Senate demonstrate the gross lie of your remarks.
As does your rote recitation of the crappy leftist meme du jour, that the Republican House is solely engaged in partisan gridlock.
All while Democrats go THREE YEARS without acting on a Federal Budget, so they can more readily conceal where the money is actually going.

rayra on January 5, 2012 at 3:14 PM

Agree with Santorum on this. One of Reagan’s biggest mistakes. But I’ll go further and say Soc Sec should be phased out altogether. The government has no business in the retirement business, not to mention it being unconstitutional.

bgibbs1000 on January 5, 2012 at 2:52 PM

I couldn’t agree more. Can I just quit paying social security and call it a bad idea? I really can make more, even if my bank pays me a quarter-percent in interest a year… just sayin’.

Turtle317 on January 5, 2012 at 3:14 PM

You mean like what George W. Bush did with 6 years of a Republican House and Senate? (nothing on Soc. Security, passing Medicare D boondoggle…)

Your rose-colored glasses need polishing, pal.

gryphon202 on January 5, 2012 at 3:09 PM

To be fair, Bush only had 4 years of a GOP senate. Everyone forgets about Jim Jeffords. Also, the GOP of the 80s was not the GOP of the 2000s. The 80s GOP would have controlled spending with Reagan. The 2000s GOP turned into Dem-Lite but with a heavy dose of warmongering and God thrown in.

angryed on January 5, 2012 at 3:14 PM

joekenha on January 5, 2012 at 3:03 PM

Well, for starters, I vividly remember the Berlin Wall speech. Basically by himself, he defeated communism, and I’m sure Gorby would even agree with him on that.

He knew how to speak to the populace that I don’t think anyone running today could compare.

He had the kind of who cares what anyone in the media says. I remember when he literally stuck his tongue out and made fun of the media.

He didn’t care for the GOP elite, and let them know. Look the “Mr. Green, I paid for this microphone” comment.

I remember as a youth when he came to the WH, that America was revied, and you felt good about him being in control. And the fear that he placed in other nations, that would dare to come against us.

And, I could go on and on.

To be honest, there is one person I have seen on the scene recently that could do all that as well, but the elite told her she was not allowed to run this year, since it was “Mitt’s turn”

ConservativePartyNow on January 5, 2012 at 3:14 PM

when we use this analogy with Mitt and massachusetts we get crucified

gerrym51 on January 5, 2012 at 2:56 PM

That would be because Reagan, despite his troubles with a Democratic Congress, had an actual conservative record. Mitt doesn’t have one, period. If he had a similar record to, say, Gingrich – if he enacted ANY serious conservative reforms or legislation – he would certainly be getting a second look by now from the party base. But he hasn’t, and there isn’t any real evidence that he’s ever tried.

The reason he is so bitterly opposed by the base is because most of them understand this, and understand what he will do to the country if he is elected president.

Hint: He won’t be cutting spending.

Doomberg on January 5, 2012 at 3:15 PM

Ronald Reagan also had to deal with Democratic-controlled House of Representatives his entire 8 years in office.

And for the last 2 years of Reagan’s second term, he also had to deal with a Democratic-contralled Senate.

Imagine what Reagan could have done with a Republican House and Senate…

ITguy on January 5, 2012 at 2:51 PM

You’re stepping all over Romney’s lines. But I hear ya.

msupertas on January 5, 2012 at 3:15 PM

..hrumph! hrumph! hrumph! You clod! Yer mother wears combat boots!

The War Planner on January 5, 2012 at 3:11 PM

????
I really have no idea what that means.

angryed on January 5, 2012 at 3:16 PM

“I love Ronald Reagan, but if I would point to one thing during his administration that he did a serious wrong, it was this bill, it was this Social Security fix…”

How does Ricko stand on Ronald Reagan’s amnesty program…?

Seven Percent Solution on January 5, 2012 at 3:08 PM

His grandfather and father were immigrants. He says that when they came over in the ’20s there were no benefits or promises and doesn’t think there should be any now. He is against amnesty, for a fence, against benefits for illegals (including tuition assistance).
He is adamently opposed to ObamaCare.

txmomof6 on January 5, 2012 at 3:16 PM

MA SENATE ELECTION 1994:

Kennedy 58%
Romney 41%

angryed on January 5, 2012 at 3:10 PM

And your point is? Romney did better than all of Snorkle-meister’s other senatorial opponents.

..and you also wear frilly pink underwear too!

The War Planner on January 5, 2012 at 3:16 PM

Tina, I do wonder how much you like this quote and the fact that it – by itself – will make Santorum a laughingstock to more than 90% of the American electorate?

“One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country….Many of the Christian faith have said, well, thats okay, contraception is okay. Its not okay. Its a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.” –

Got that everyone? Rick Santorum has spoken, and it’s not OK. That’s gonna be a big winner in a national election.

InVinoVeritas on January 5, 2012 at 3:17 PM

I couldn’t agree more. Can I just quit paying social security and call it a bad idea? I really can make more, even if my bank pays me a quarter-percent in interest a year… just sayin’.

Turtle317 on January 5, 2012 at 3:14 PM

Average person getting $1000/month in social security will get back everything they paid into the system in about 8 years. There is no way 0.25% annual interest on 7% of your earnings could generate that kind of annuity.

Social security is popular for a reason, folks. This is why Bush’s push to privatization failed.

ZGMF_Freedom on January 5, 2012 at 3:18 PM

I wasn’t alive when Reagan was president. It would be nice if the GOP could explain to the younger voters what made Reagan great. However, the Republicans are too stupid to do that.

As for Rick Santorum…he was just lucky that the clock ran out when he did. He won’t be around much longer.

joekenha on January 5, 2012 at 3:03 PM

I suggest this speech

The Speech

bgibbs1000 on January 5, 2012 at 3:19 PM

I really have no idea what that means.

angryed on January 5, 2012 at 3:16 PM

I was angry(!) over yor slight of me being an incoherent Romney supporter. I have, on many occasions, written more than five words and not uttered ad hominem attacks.

..you..you..you..doo-doo heiny!

The War Planner on January 5, 2012 at 3:19 PM

That would be because Reagan, despite his troubles with a Democratic Congress, had an actual conservative record. Mitt doesn’t have one, period. If he had a similar record to, say, Gingrich – if he enacted ANY serious conservative reforms or legislation – he would certainly be getting a second look by now from the party base. But he hasn’t, and there isn’t any real evidence that he’s ever tried.

The reason he is so bitterly opposed by the base is because most of them understand this, and understand what he will do to the country if he is elected president.

Hint: He won’t be cutting spending.

Doomberg on January 5, 2012 at 3:15 PM

Bbbbbbut he is from Massachusetts. He had to be a liberal.He had no choice. Those meanies in the Dem party put a gun to his head to sign Romneycare and Cap N Trade and ban guns and raise taxes and increase spending. He had no choice. Come on man, get with the program. Mitt is a conservative.

Haven’t you read his web site? It’s all there will cool pictures and stuff. Don’t worry about his record. Only believe his campaign slogans. If you don’t the terrorists will have won.

angryed on January 5, 2012 at 3:19 PM

And your point is? Romney did better than all of Snorkle-meister’s other senatorial opponents.

..and you also wear frilly pink underwear too!

The War Planner on January 5, 2012 at 3:16 PM

My underwear are my business than you very much.

So a 17% loser is actually winner. Got it. When he loses by 5% to Obama I guess he will actually have won because McCain lost by 7%. OK, why not?

angryed on January 5, 2012 at 3:21 PM

InVinoVeritas on January 5, 2012 at 3:17 PM
So the idea of birth control police scares you more than the fiscal armageddon facing this country if Obama is reelected? Wow.

txmomof6 on January 5, 2012 at 3:23 PM

I couldn’t agree more. Can I just quit paying social security and call it a bad idea? I really can make more, even if my bank pays me a quarter-percent in interest a year… just sayin’.

Turtle317 on January 5, 2012 at 3:14 PM

Average person getting $1000/month in social security will get back everything they paid into the system in about 8 years. There is no way 0.25% annual interest on 7% of your earnings could generate that kind of annuity.

Social security is popular for a reason, folks. This is why Bush’s push to privatization failed.

ZGMF_Freedom on January 5, 2012 at 3:18 PM

EIGHT YEARS??? What dope are you smoking??? Would you like to provide me with the datasheet that will show me what *I* will be paid (I’m 48 now) when I retire at age 70? Ever heard of “solvency”? There is NO friggin’ way the government can provide for the entitlements on its books. NO FREAKIN’ WAY. I have a better chance putting cash in a mason jar in my back yard (Hillbillyish, I know) and seeing it again than I do through the promises of a broken social security system.

Turtle317 on January 5, 2012 at 3:24 PM

The Tea Party disagrees with Reagen every day. He raised taxes 11 times. There’s no disputing this.

anyhow…

I will never vote for a religious zealot to be our commander in chief. That’s dangerous.

rubberneck on January 5, 2012 at 3:25 PM

How is it Point Santorum? The only people running that had any power to do anything about Social Security was Santorum, Gingrich and Paul. And they didn’t do a damn thing. Reagan at least did something.

lowandslow on January 5, 2012 at 3:10 PM

Here’s another ignorant ahistorical fraud.
Reagan didn’t sign that congressional legislation in a vacuum.
And Santorum (and Boehner, for that matter) were members of the ‘Gang of Seven’ who in the early 90s forced congressional leadership to resolve the House Banking issue. And who also helped write what became Newt’s highly successful ‘Contract with America’. Part of the legislative thrust for entitlement reform which the Left has since re-written the history of to grant Clinton the credit for welfare reform he had thrust upon him by the 104th Congress under Speaker Newt.
So when you say they ‘didn’t do anything’ you are LYING.

rayra on January 5, 2012 at 3:25 PM

I think that as important as it is to elect as conservative a president as we can possibly get, we need to not lose sight of the fact that it is EQUALLY as important to make sure the senate and the house are also as conservative as we can possibly manage.

It won’t matter a blessed bit how fiscally conservative our new CIC is if we have a profligate congress controlling the purse strings.

See example: Everything said about governing in liberal blue states with “conservative governors”.

The only reason that Bill Clinton now looks like a paragon of fiscal responsibility is that a much more conservative congress than he wrestled him into it. Reagan did not get all the fiscal reforms he wanted because he had to deal with a congress that was not on the same page.

We need both the executive and congressional branches working together if we are going to see real progress.

Lily on January 5, 2012 at 3:27 PM

Just sitting here watching this train wreck:
Obama if reelected will continue to do serious damage to this country which already will take 8 years to fix. It will take that long to undo and fix what this man has already done. But if Romney is elected don’t count on this country ever getting fixed in 8 years or for that matter ever. He is not the kind of strong willed real conservative it will take to correct this mess and nether is Santorum. If we have any chance at all for real change and a complete turnaround there is only one in this mix that can do it, and that’s Newt.

Shain1611 on January 5, 2012 at 3:28 PM

I will never vote for a religious zealot to be our commander in chief. That’s dangerous.

rubberneck on January 5, 2012 at 3:25 PM

If you think Romney is going to have issues because of being LDS from the Prop8 folks; just image the venom that Santorum will get.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on January 5, 2012 at 3:29 PM

dhugh on January 5, 2012 at 3:08 PM

ITguy on January 5, 2012 at 3:10 PM

Oh, I understand Reagan’s greatness. However, the rest of my generation doesn’t.

joekenha on January 5, 2012 at 3:29 PM

What a steaming pile of excrement. Santorum’s own terms in both House and Senate demonstrate the gross lie of your remarks.
As does your rote recitation of the crappy leftist meme du jour, that the Republican House is solely engaged in partisan gridlock.
All while Democrats go THREE YEARS without acting on a Federal Budget, so they can more readily conceal where the money is actually going.

rayra on January 5, 2012 at 3:14 PM

Settle down, sweetheart. I would have lodged the same complaint about Bachman or Paul. Anyway where did I single out Republicans in Congress? They’re all engaged in the same tactics. A president had to have a different skill set, which includes among other things, actual experience in a leadership role.

Then there’s that whole endorsing Specter thing which is indirectly responsible – at least in part – for why we now have Obamacare. So hyperventilating that I’m misrepresenting this douche’s record is not going to persuade this born and bred In PA voter to seeing your side of things.

NoLeftTurn on January 5, 2012 at 3:30 PM

will never vote for a religious zealot to be our commander in chief. That’s dangerous.

rubberneck on January 5, 2012 at 3:25 PM

Yes and that’s why King David was great, because he was God’s choice and Saul was yours.

Shain1611 on January 5, 2012 at 3:33 PM

The Tea Party disagrees with Reagen every day. He raised taxes 11 times. There’s no disputing this.

anyhow…

I will never vote for a religious zealot to be our commander in chief. That’s dangerous.

rubberneck on January 5, 2012 at 3:25 PM

You don’t know wtf those words mean. Let me guess, another pot-smoking libertarian-socialist raised to rabidly disdain organized religion? Paul Supporter?
Vast majority of this nation shares the same ‘religious zealotry’ that gives you the vapors. Vast majority of this nation’s Presidents have too. Including many of its Founders, despite what modern marxist “educators” lie about today.

rayra on January 5, 2012 at 3:33 PM

You mean like what George W. Bush did with 6 years of a Republican House and Senate? (nothing on Soc. Security, passing Medicare D boondoggle…)

Your rose-colored glasses need polishing, pal.

gryphon202 on January 5, 2012 at 3:09 PM

As angryed pointed out, Bush only had 4 years of a GOP senate because Jim Jeffords became an “Independent” who caucused with the Democrats. Consider that a RINO stripped of his mask. The Democrat-controlled Senate then did everything they could to block any conservative move by George W. Bush. Conservative judicial nominations? Held in committee or filibustered.

Even when Bush had a Republican majority in the Senate for 4 years, Democrats had enough numbers (and RINOS) to filibuster. And that is why W’s plans to reform Social Security never materialized.

I am no fan of the Medicare Part D, but a few years ago I heard a recording that shed new light on that for me… the recording was of then-Governor George W. Bush in 2000. Remember that Al Gore was promoting prescription drug coverage for Seniors. As much as I don’t like this, George W. Bush did a “me too!” and promised prescription drug coverage for Seniors. So, what he did later in office was keeping the promise he made. Who knows, perhaps without that promise, he might have lost Florida (and the election) to Gore.

As much as I don’t like Government entitlement programs, I would have disliked having Al Gore in the Oval Office on 9/11/2001 even more.

I’m definitely not happy about the growth of government and deficit spending under George W. Bush. But it got multiple times worse when the Democrats took majority control…

I’m going to repeat some things I’ve said previously…

Keep in mind that those who are elected in November of a given year are sworn in in January of the following year, but typically there is already a budget in place, so the first budget for which they vote is the FY that starts in October of that year (nearly a year after their election) and finishes in September of the following year (nearly two years after their election).

An exception is the FY 2009 budget. Pelosi and Reid held it off (with continuing resolutions) until Obama replaced Bush. Obama signed it, so I’m moving the FY 2009 deficit from the Bush column to the Obama column.

Here are the correct numbers:

average annual deficits by Presidential administration, but further breaking down which party held the majority of the three pieces (House, Senate, Presidency):

“President and Overall Majority Party”, “Average Annual Deficit”

FY 2010-11 Obama with Democrat majority….. $1,589 Billion
FY 2008-09 Bush 43 with Democrat majority… $1,017 Billion
FY 2002-07 Bush 43 with Republican majority… $533 Billion
FY 1996-01 Clinton with Republican majority…. $139 Billion
FY 1994-95 Clinton with Democrat majority…… $281 Billion
FY 1990-93 Bush 41 with Democrat majority….. $389 Billion
FY 1988-89 Reagan with Democrat majority…… $254 Billion
FY 1982-87 Reagan with Republican majority…. $225 Billion
FY 1978-81 Carter with Democrat majority………. $75 Billion

ITguy on January 5, 2012 at 3:34 PM

Interesting. The candidate who doesn’t care for creating more welfarish dependence on government is all for fixing social security, a giant of a welfare program. Very interesting.

Political Season on January 5, 2012 at 3:34 PM

EIGHT YEARS??? What dope are you smoking??? Would you like to provide me with the datasheet that will show me what *I* will be paid (I’m 48 now) when I retire at age 70? Ever heard of “solvency”? There is NO friggin’ way the government can provide for the entitlements on its books. NO FREAKIN’ WAY. I have a better chance putting cash in a mason jar in my back yard (Hillbillyish, I know) and seeing it again than I do through the promises of a broken social security system.

Turtle317 on January 5, 2012 at 3:24 PM

The formula for your benefits is called the PIA (Primary Insurance Amount). After your top 35 years of earnings are indexed for inflation, a monthly average is established (AIME, Average Indexed Monthly Earnings). For the ~$500/month, you receive 90% back in monthly benefits. For the next ~$1000/month, you get 32% back, etc.

People get much more out of social security than they ever put it. This is not sustainable. This is why people call social security a pyramid scheme.

ZGMF_Freedom on January 5, 2012 at 3:35 PM

Rick Santorum: black market condoms! Condom gangs from Mexico. Border guards shot while checking cars for condoms. Condom sniffing dogs at airports. Rick Santorum is as embarrassing as Ron Paul. What the hell are the republicans thinking?

Kaffa on January 5, 2012 at 3:35 PM

And social security isn’t even the biggest problem. Medicare is, by far, the largest unfunded liability. I find it ironic that Santorum is criticizing Reagan’s social security reform while at the same time defending his vote for the largest expansion of Medicare since it’s creation.

ZGMF_Freedom on January 5, 2012 at 3:37 PM

Sorry, one more edit.

“President and Overall Majority Party”, “Average Annual Deficit”

FY 2009-11 Obama with Democrat majority….. $1,589 Billion
FY 2008 Bush 43 with Democrat majority… $1,017 Billion
FY 2002-07 Bush 43 with Republican majority… $533 Billion
FY 1996-01 Clinton with Republican majority…. $139 Billion
FY 1994-95 Clinton with Democrat majority…… $281 Billion
FY 1990-93 Bush 41 with Democrat majority….. $389 Billion
FY 1988-89 Reagan with Democrat majority…… $254 Billion
FY 1982-87 Reagan with Republican majority…. $225 Billion
FY 1978-81 Carter with Democrat majority………. $75 Billion

ITguy on January 5, 2012 at 3:38 PM

Settle down, sweetheart. …
… So hyperventilating that I’m misrepresenting this douche’s record is not going to persuade this born and bred In PA voter to seeing your side of things.

NoLeftTurn on January 5, 2012 at 3:30 PM

Stuff your ‘sweetheart’, clown. And I don’t give a god damn about your claimed PA bonafides. you have no clue what my ‘side’ is. I don’t like Santorum either, he’s a weak candidate. I like distortive liars like yourself even less, is all.

rayra on January 5, 2012 at 3:39 PM

I’m definitely not happy about the growth of government and deficit spending under George W. Bush. But it got multiple times worse when the Democrats took majority control…

ITguy on January 5, 2012 at 3:34 PM

So George W. Bush kept a promise to do something unconstitutional. And although he NEVER spent less in any year then was spent in the previous year, I’m supposed to feel okay about that because Obama shot it through the roof? Is that the gist of what you’re saying?

I want someone who will follow the constitution. A pox on all their houses. Anyone who trusts any of the extant candidates to do so based on their prior records is a fool.

gryphon202 on January 5, 2012 at 3:39 PM

Frothy mixture would not talk about birth control if he did not believe government should impose controls and sanctions. Does that sound like a winning platform plank, or a good litmus test for SCOTUS picks to anyone here?

borntoraisehogs on January 5, 2012 at 3:42 PM

I wasn’t alive when Reagan was president. It would be nice if the GOP could explain to the younger voters what made Reagan great. However, the Republicans are too stupid to do that.

As for Rick Santorum…he was just lucky that the clock ran out when he did. He won’t be around much longer.

joekenha on January 5, 2012 at 3:03 PM

For me, what made Ronald Reagan a great president is that you had no doubt he loved his country wanted only what was best for her and her people. You can see evidence of this in his final speech before leaving office.

Flora Duh on January 5, 2012 at 3:47 PM

So George W. Bush … NEVER spent less in any year then was spent in the previous year

gryphon202 on January 5, 2012 at 3:39 PM

Not true.

Look at the following FY end dates, total debt, and increase in debt since the previous year (i.e., the deficit for that FY)

9/30/2007 $9,008 $501
9/30/2006 $8,507 $574
9/30/2005 $7,933 $554
9/30/2004 $7,379 $596
9/30/2003 $6,783 $555
9/30/2002 $6,228 $421

Bush 43 with majority-Republican control produced it’s largest deficit in FY 2004. All three years following that were less, finishing with a FY 2007 deficit that was 16% smaller than the FY 2004 deficit.

Then the Democrats, who had won the 2006 elections on the promise of ending deficit spending, went on to produce a FY 2008 deficit that was more than double the FY 2007 deficit.

ITguy on January 5, 2012 at 3:47 PM

“I love Ronald Reagan, but if I would point to one thing during his administration that he did a serious wrong, it was this bill, it was this Social Security fix…”
How does Ricko stand on Ronald Reagan’s amnesty program…?

Would Frothy mixture “show the flag” and send troops to be slaughtered like in Beirut.

borntoraisehogs on January 5, 2012 at 3:48 PM

Oh, I understand Reagan’s greatness. However, the rest of my generation doesn’t.

joekenha on January 5, 2012 at 3:29 PM

It’s your responsibility to share what you know with them. They are more likely to listen to you than to us.

ITguy on January 5, 2012 at 3:49 PM

EIGHT YEARS??? What dope are you smoking??? Would you like to provide me with the datasheet that will show me what *I* will be paid (I’m 48 now) when I retire at age 70? Ever heard of “solvency”? There is NO friggin’ way the government can provide for the entitlements on its books. NO FREAKIN’ WAY. I have a better chance putting cash in a mason jar in my back yard (Hillbillyish, I know) and seeing it again than I do through the promises of a broken social security system.

Turtle317 on January 5, 2012 at 3:24 PM

..just doing the math (and not to be argumentative here):

(1) I worked for approx. (but not more than) 40 years.

(2) I paid in less than $5,000 per year. Let’s assume $5,000.

(3) I paid in $5,000 x 40 = $200,000.

(4) I collect at least $2,200 per month.

(5) I will collect $2,200 x 8 x 12 or $211,200 in 8 years.

YMMV. Solvency, investment of funds and foregone opportunities are another issue.

The War Planner on January 5, 2012 at 3:51 PM

I’m 38, I do not expect to get a dime from Social Security. It just a form of government legalized rape of my paycheck.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on January 5, 2012 at 3:54 PM

You don’t know wtf those words mean.

Sure I do. Santorum is a catholic fanatic/crusader. To the point where he doesn’t support contraception. Not to mention bringing his stillborn son home, and sleeping with it. That’s fanatical and not mainstream in America.

Would accept a president bring his stillborn child to the white house? Not me…in a million years, cause that person could do just about anything. So yea, he’s a zealot.

rubberneck on January 5, 2012 at 3:56 PM

The debt of the United States is now greater than its GDP! And “social conservatives” are worried about who is having sex with who? This is unbelievable to me. Just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

Kaffa on January 5, 2012 at 3:58 PM

Bush 43 with majority-Republican control produced it’s largest deficit in FY 2004. All three years following that were less, finishing with a FY 2007 deficit that was 16% smaller than the FY 2004 deficit.

Then the Democrats, who had won the 2006 elections on the promise of ending deficit spending, went on to produce a FY 2008 deficit that was more than double the FY 2007 deficit.

ITguy on January 5, 2012 at 3:47 PM

You’re citing deficits, which is the difference between money taken in and spent. That IS NOT the same thing as saying that George W. Bush shrunk government spending (which he didn’t).

gryphon202 on January 5, 2012 at 3:58 PM

Comment pages: 1 2