I'll take that Huntsman statement on social security as a campaign statement, not necessarily a sort of long standing view. But, be that as it may. There's a good and a bad in that statement. The good is that there is no mention of privatizing social security. In fact, however, he simply refuses to address that issue. He doesn't say he won't; just addresses a different problem. So the good is a qualified good. But, sticking with this point, should Huntsman get the nomination and get elected, that's one of the first things that will happen. A raft of proposals to privatize social security and medicare will be on the table. So, on this point, that ends social security and, for that matter, as we know it.
The second point is that means testing social security and medicare turn them into welfare programs rather than savings plans. Their fate is fairly predictable--the means level gets lower and lower and the amount provided is either not raised with inflation and perhaps even cut, with our usual round of budget cuttings because we refuse to tax fairly. Finally, the hammer this point home, it loses political support, which means the cut are greater. The fate of welfare programs. You can already hear some Reagan type in the 2020s talking about elder welfare queens.
So Huntsman means the end of social security and medicare as we know it.
As for these payroll tax cuts destroying social security, it's something to think about. But those in the know argue that's not the case. Over the short term those cuts are being funded from the general fund. And the money becomes stimulus money because it's one of the few kinds of stimulus the Obama administration can get the Reps to swallow. So if you are looking for villains on this one, look at the Reps. |
