
Though two prominent Republicans have offered ideas for privatizing Social Security, the official GOP line in 2010 won't include that plan.
After Rep. Jeb Hensarling talked about wanting to privatize Social Security last night on MSNBC's "Hardball," TPMDC checked in with Republican aides on Capitol Hill.
Most of the GOP aides were reluctant to even entertain the question of whether Republicans will formally campaign on the idea, suggesting that it's a political third rail they would rather avoid. Indeed, the Democrats already jumped on Hensarling's remarks to suggest the GOP is "dusting off the old playbook."
A spokesman for the conservative Republican Study Committee said the GOP this year will talk about the nation's "serious fiscal challenges."
The spokesman added: "In terms of policy, however, the RSC budget alternative did not make any changes to Social Security, and I imagine that will be the same for this year."
Rep. Paul Ryan, (R-WI) the ranking Republican on the budget committee, recently detailed the Republican plan for Social Security that preserves the existing program for those 55 or older. For younger people the plan "offers the option of investing over one-third of their current Social Security taxes into personal retirement accounts, similar to the Thrift Savings Plan available to federal employees."
It also includes a "gradual, modest increase in the retirement age," Ryan wrote in the Wall Street Journal.
A spokesman for the conservative Club for Growth told me today the group agrees with Hensarling.
"You can't even talk seriously about the debt, deficit, or a balanced budget without fundamentally reforming entitlement programs," Mike Connolly said. "Under a social security system strengthened with personal accounts, future seniors will realize much larger balances than they would under the current system."
He added, "Every candidate will have to decide for himself what issues to campaign on this year, but if Republicans want to show the American people they can be trusted with leadership again, attacking the Democrats isn't enough. The times cry out for a bold agenda of conservative economic reform, and for politicians like Jeb Hensarling who can articulate one."
The Democratic talking points go after Ryan and Hensarling as pitching ideas that "have been rejected by the American people."
"This is the Republican version of the movie 'Groundhog Day,' but instead of waking up to the same day over and over, Americans are waking up to the same radical proposals from the GOP," Rep. John Yarmuth (D-KY) said in response to Ryan and Hensarling.
wbgonne
February 2, 2010 4:05 PM
Because they are going to pretend they never said it and the Dems are too half-assed to make them eat their own words. Plus, the Republicrats probably FAVOR the idea of privatizing Social Security, and we certainly wouldn't want to offend them b/c, you know, otherwise they might refuse to vote with the Party on crucial procedural votes. Like Casey Stengel said about the Mets: Doesn't anybody here know how to play this game?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kristin126
February 2, 2010 4:13 PM
Gee, that's brilliant. After watching the stock market tank last year, most voters would not sign up for social security privatization.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EastWest
February 2, 2010 4:35 PM
Here's how it will likely play out (not this year, but someday):
The Republicans will once again get control of the Senate, the House, and the White House. After a lengthy PR campaign, they'll pass S/S privatization with overwhelming public support. They'll ultimately be thrown out office for ruining the economy, and the Democrats will take over.
Retirement savings will vanish and seniors will be left starving, freezing and homeless. The Democrats will get the blame.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
February 2, 2010 7:07 PM in reply to EastWest
Wash, rinse, repeat. {sigh}
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
February 2, 2010 4:49 PM
For younger people the plan "offers the option of investing over one-third of their current Social Security taxes into personal retirement accounts, similar to the Thrift Savings Plan available to federal employees."
They didn't happen to mention where they were going to get the $2 TRILLION to pay for this, did they?
Didn't think so.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sunnysteve
February 2, 2010 5:19 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
Same way they paid for the Medicare drug plan and the war in Iraq: give the wealthy a $2 trillion tax cut, then run a $2 trillion dollar deficit, which is financed by borrowing back $2 trillion from the wealthy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ericf
February 2, 2010 4:50 PM
Well, why not push privatization again? It worked so well for them in 2005. They almost got to a hearing!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jack of All Tirades
February 2, 2010 5:20 PM
Actually, it's true: If you want to seriously tackle the deficit, you're going to have to talk about cutting entitlements.
According to Peter G. Peterson's book, Running on Empty, if the Social Security COLAs were indexed to inflation instead of wage increases, that would solve half of Social Security's solvency issues. However, as the COLAs wouldn't be as large, we could depend on a chorus of Democrats who would decry the 'slashing of seniors' income" (note, I am a registered Democrat).
Another thing that could be done that would gore the ox of many Republicans would be means testing. If you earn over, say, 70K a year, you won't get Social Security.
I think President Obama should bring out some Ross Perot-style charts and show the American people where their money is going. I think a lot of people would respect not being pandered to. Let the Republicans demagogue all they want. Obama has already proven he's the adult in the room.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
condew
February 2, 2010 6:00 PM in reply to Jack of All Tirades
The Bush depression will cut Social Security benefits all by itself. The first part of the calculation for benefits is a calculation of average lifetime earnings adjusted for wage increases. This has been an adjustment up, because the average wage has been going up. If the average wage in the year you turn 62 is down, the ratio to the average wage in past years will be smaller, those adjustments on prior year earnings will be less, and your benefit will be less. If wages rise less than inflation from this point on, Social security benefits will be less if we stick with the current system. I see the constant export and outsourcing of jobs, and the importation of cheap labor as depressing wages. I see the various efforts to save the economy and a weakening dollar as gathering fuel for major inflation. I cannot say which will be larger.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bruce Webb
February 2, 2010 7:33 PM in reply to Jack of All Tirades
COLAs are already indexed to inflation. It is initial benefits that are indexed to Real Wage.
And PGP has been on a crusade against Soc Sec for more than 20 years.
Please read more before commntin on this, you simply look like a PGP tool.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tpmgreg
February 2, 2010 8:22 PM in reply to Jack of All Tirades
Excuse me, but let's cut the military part of the budget, and leave entitlements alone. Let's take care or each other rather than kill foreigners in their own lands. Why do we need military spending that is bigger than the sum of all other nations???
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
KenInTenn
February 2, 2010 5:46 PM
So it is not the Republicans wanting to blow up Social Security, its the Club for Growth's Tea Partiers? I wonder if they know it?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
salame
February 2, 2010 5:52 PM
They will wait until they're back in the majority or control the White House to start doing that.
Right now, they're all up in the old folks faces with how they, the rethugs, are the keeper of the golden years dream. You know, what with the dems wanting those "death panels" and all.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
condew
February 2, 2010 6:03 PM in reply to salame
Yes, Republicans as defenders of Medicare is a bad joke; but the news media is so shallow and biased, I fear the lie has been sold and it will cost Democrats in 2010 and 2012.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
February 2, 2010 6:20 PM in reply to condew
I know we can count on the Republicans and Tea-baggers to prevent a gummint takeover of Social Security.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
condew
February 2, 2010 6:11 PM
If Democrats were complicit in cutting my Social Security, that is perhaps the one thing that could get me to vote third party.
Considering that Bill Clinton cut welfare, and that Obama seems to crap on his friends and suck up to his enemies; considering the Democratic party death wishes in health care reform such as the mandate, taxing those who have good coverage, and taking a half-trillion out of Medicare; I don't see Democrats gutting Social Security as a remote possibility.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Powkat
February 2, 2010 6:16 PM
If the Orange Wonder puts his paws on my social security, he better be prepared to lose them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DP1
February 2, 2010 6:43 PM
Please, please let them campaign on something like this. After alot of older folks have lost part or most of their retirement investments, pensions in the big wall street fake out of 2008-09, please now let them tell the old folks their social security will now be gambled away in the great wall street casino. Please!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
masanf
February 2, 2010 9:32 PM
"This is the Republican version of the movie 'Groundhog Day,' but instead of waking up to the same day over and over, Americans are waking up to the same radical proposals from the GOP..."
As opposed to the Democratic Party's moderate and sane proposals on health care? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Marinus van der Lubbe
February 3, 2010 6:41 AM
They must have wondered if Hensarling had snapped after his bitchslapping the other day and just slipped an old recording of W into his brainpan for replay.
Being bankrupt of any ideas is a poor cliche, yet it suffices here. They had nothing, they have nothing, they will never have anything.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
February 3, 2010 7:41 AM in reply to Marinus van der Lubbe
That guy Hensarling is like a creepy android. He just keeps spouting the same nonsense on and on, barely stopping for breath, utterly oblivious to reality.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Marinus van der Lubbe
February 3, 2010 8:00 AM in reply to wbgonne
...but his hair is perfect.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lariokie
February 5, 2010 1:38 PM
The Bushco White House strategically created the economic meltdown after their massive wealth redistribution (ie. multi-trillion $ tax cuts, trillion $ wars and Medicare drug plan tailored for big pharma, and the multi-trillion $ bank and AIG bailouts). As Grover Norquist was fond of saying, "I don't want to do away with the federal government, I just want to shrink it to a size I can drown in the bathtub." That is precisely what they have done. By bankrupting the federal government, and redistributing the US treasury to the richest 1%, they have effectively neutered the government. The Supremes have hammered the last nail into the coffin of democracy by giving those 1 percenters the unmitigated right to spend as much as they want, to say whatever will scare the hell out of the average American TV junky into voting against their own interests.
Obama, of course, stepped directly into the leg trap left for him and now they have him hanging upside down, unable to effectively address any of the massive problems left behind. We don't need more Democrats, we need smarter ones. Perhaps we need a miracle.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
June 12, 2010 5:23 PM
According to Peter G. Peterson's book, Running on Empty, if the Social Security COLAs were indexed to inflation instead of wage increases, that would solve half of Social Security's solvency issues. However, as the COLAs wouldn't be as large, we could depend on a chorus of Democrats who would decry the 'slashing of seniors' income" (note, I am a registered Democrat).
Another thing that could be done that would gore the ox of many Republicans would be means testing. If you earn over, say, 70K a year, you won't get Social Security.
m65 kamagra
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?