Sunday, May 10, 2015

Huckabee and Social Security

Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee on Sunday reaffirmed his stance that Social Security needs to be preserved, a viewpoint that sets him apart from some of his GOP rivals.
Huckabee included Social Security in his platform of priorities when he announced his candidacy on Tuesday in Hope, Arkansas. CBS Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer commented that the position made Huckabee sound a bit like a Democrat.

"Well, I think I sounded more like an American," Huckabee said.  "I sounded like an American who understands that people have been paying in in my case since I was 14 years old when I got my first job, people pay into a system for 50 years."

Huckabee conceded that if the current Social Security system is unsustainable, reforms may be necessary, but argued that they should affect only people who are new to the workforce.

"About the only way we can really make these reforms is to hurt somebody," Huckabee said. "I don't think Americans believe that after having paid in all these years, again, not a choice, wasn't voluntary, it was forced out of their checks that somehow, the government who didn't take good care of business can come in and say, 'Yep, we're gonna make you end up paying for our sins.'"


  1. "Huckabee conceded that if the current Social Security system is unsustainable, reforms may be necessary, but argued that they should affect only people who are new to the workforce."

    This, in my opinion cuts right to the heart of the matter. An attitude of "Gimme Mine" and let subsequent generations suck it. This is basically the Paul Ryan plan as well. Keep it the same for the senior citizens in order to keep getting re-elected and tell the younger generation that this is just another thing that everyone else got, that you will continue to pay for but not get to participate in.

    ""About the only way we can really make these reforms is to hurt somebody,"

    And Huckabee wants seniors to understand that people like him intend to fully make sure that those under 50 (AKA those after baby boomers) are the ones who will pay for the sins of the generation ahead of them. I'll admit, my generation will have to likely take a reduced rate. However, we could also raise the ceiling on how much income is taxed. But, that would mean people of Huckster's generation would actually have to sacrifice something. I'm not gonna hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

    1. The question of the year, who do you hurt with reforms?

      SS/medicare, the seniors currently collecting SS and medicare, the people not yet eligible or both?

      This entire mess is manufactured by our less than trust worthy politicians by adding more people to the eligibility list as the money was rolling in. Today we are close to pay as you go. When we roll over that thresh hold, the taxpayers will need to contribute more or we are faced with more debt. The solution, pretend there is no problem, pretend there's a bucket of money in the trust fund instead of IOU's. Anything to be re-elected.

      Yet another reason for term limits.

    2. Isn't term limits just rewarding people who choose not give enough of a crap to vote? I personally really don't care about whether we put them in or not because it will still come back to the same situation. Our government has many owned politicians, and we keep voting to send them back. So yeah, you can throw out one, and they will be replaced by a carbon copy.

      Seniors will get what they want because they vote. Young people really don't understand that.

    3. Rick Perry doesn't understand that, he claims that Social security, Medicare and, of course, Obamacare are all unconstitutional. Elect him and he plans to pack the Supreme Court with justices who agree with him as the current elders die or retire.

    4. And that would pretty much take it full circle with a fitting irony that Roosevelt basically stacked the court to ensure his new deal would be deemed constitutional. It would make total sense to simply pack it the other way and undo all of it.

      Lou, as an addendum to your question above of how to decide who should be hurt with reforms. To me, it comes down, not surprisingly, to context. If the thinking is that we want to preserve the idea of keeping SS around to be a device to try and keep seniors from starving, then there are some measures that make sense. On the other hand, if we are simply appalled by the idea of this redistribution scam, then the only logical solution is really what the Republicans are proposing, which is to essentially make whole everyone over 65 while making clear to younger people that this is going to be phased out. Eventually, we would then just end it.

    5. I have no problem with initial intent of SS. Unfortunately during the vote buying years numerous people who have not contributed have been added to the program.
      Had a friend I worked with years ago. He made 80K a year. His wife died, never worked and he received SS for his 2 children until they were 18 years old.

      When FDR signed SS, retirement age was 65 years old. Today reduced benefits at 62.5 and full retirement at 66. Life expectancy has increased dramatically yet the retirement age has not risen.

      Now we will soon be faced with decisions.
      1. Reduce benefits
      2. Means testing
      3. Raise the retirement age
      4. Raise taxes

      The solution they chose will dictate who gets hurt.