So, after he realized that he may actually run for President, Rick Perry wants to take back what he said in the book that he recently pounded the podium with to say how he's a presidential candidate. All because, you know, someone actually read it and said, "Hey, did you really mean this about Social Security being a Ponzi Scheme?"
In his book, Fed Up, Ricky Boy goes a long way to talk about how crazy SocSec is. Here's two quotes form the article linked above,
"This unsustainable fiscal insanity is the true legacy of Social Security and the New Deal. Deceptive accounting has hoodwinked the American public into thinking that Social Security is a retirement system and financially sound, when clearly it is not."
"If only the New Dealers had been kind enough to allow workers to make their own choice… As we know from experience, individuals would have done better on their own… Also, before the government padlocked the door in 1983, municipal governments were allowed to opt out… three texas counties -- Galveston, Matagorda, and Brazoria -- did so. In 1981, Galveston county employees… voted 78 percent to 22 percent to leave Social Security for a private option."
Sounds like Ricky Boy has got a point. Unfortunately it's on top of his head. So, how's that working out for Galevston? Or, really, any of the public pension plans? I mean, it's almost like it's everywhere. But Texas, to be fair, is doing better because of how they structured their plans and made the decisions locally (immunizing the state from having to bail them out) and are only $38.5 billion underfunded.
So, you know, we should switch everybody to a 401k, because you know how good they're doing (20% into a 401k, how much does she make?).
So, yeah, we should scrap SocSec because the alternatives are so much better. Plus with the wonderful economy people are filing record claims with the SocSec Disability fund (which is about to break under the strain). But, you know, SocSec is horrible, terrible, and only gives a 2% return on investment (because it's not really an investment but a "pay as you go" plan). We should remove that leg of the tri-legged stool because the other two legs will hold us up. If we balance just so.
I don't know if you talk with many retirees, but I do. If you cut SocSec for most of these people, they would starve and/or be homeless. Because that's the kind of society the conservatives, in their compassion, want.
And now you may understand why SocSec is the third rail of politics. As for the talk of "We won't change it for anybody over 55 because of our promises to them," WTF? I'm fully vested in SocSec (comes from working so long). I'm almost at my highest payout possible (it's a few dollars more a month). What about your promises to me? Want to see the economy crash, tell all of us that we have to "save more." Bye-bye consumer spending.
But all that's needed to fix the system is to remove the top cap of payroll deductions. Of course that would be "raising taxes" and the conservatives will have none of it because "it's not fair." Really? I pay SocSec taxes on all of my income, why can't they?
Well, because they give money to the politicians and help those politicians get elected. And now that Rick Perry finds himself in the spotlight, he's trying to run from his record and is stuck on the horns of the dilemma . So his choice is either to be gored by the long horn of his past statement or gored by the defection of wealthy patrons.