2012 Election Unleashes A Political War On Social Security

Texas Gov. Rick Perry (Photo from San Francisco Sentinel)

The fate of Social Security has become a sizzling focal point of the 2012 presidential campaign, with the field of Republicans seeking their party’s presidential nomination engaging in an unprecedented fight over whether the wildly popular government safety net for working Americans is a “Ponzi scheme” or should be protected.

At the heart of the dust-up is Texas Gov. Rick Perry, a favorite of the conservative Tea Party movement and already the perceived frontrunner for the GOP race after entering the contest just last month. Perry’s rise has led to more scrutiny of his background and a willingness by rivals to take shots at his more controversial statements, all of which has created a firestorm around what may or may not be the governor’s strong, anti-mainstream beliefs about Social Security.

In a Monday op-ed that appeared in USA Today, Gov. Perry tried to explain his position on the future of Social Security and temper some of his more extreme rhetoric that he has used just days ago on the campaign trail.

In the op-ed, Perry vaguely promises a “frank and honest discussion” about the “problems” with Social Security. He says the “dire financial challenges” faced by the program must lead Americans and their political leaders to “have the guts” to “fix” Social Security. There are absolutely no details about what kind of “fix” is apparently necessary, or what an “honest national conversation” entails.

The first step to fixing a problem is honestly admitting there is a problem. America’s goal must be to fix Social Security by making it more financially sound and sustainable for the long term. But Americans deserve a frank and honest discussion of the dire financial challenges facing the nearly 80-year-old program.

……

I am going to be honest with the American people. Our elected leaders must have the strength to speak frankly about entitlement reform if we are to right our nation’s financial course and get the USA working again.

For too long, politicians have been afraid to speak honestly about Social Security. We must have the guts to talk about its financial condition if we are to fix Social Security and make it financially viable for generations to come.

Americans must come together and agree to address the problems so today’s beneficiaries and tomorrow’s retirees really can count on Social Security for the long haul.

We must have a frank, honest national conversation about fixing Social Security to protect benefits for those at or near retirement while keeping faith with younger generations, who are being asked to pay.

Such language is in stark contrast to most of Perry’s previous comments, both written several years ago and repeated recently as he campaigns for the Republican presidential nomination,  regarding Social Security and the idea of a government safety net for workers. In his most famous (infamous?) line, Gov. Perry has called Social Security a “Ponzi scheme” that is bilking taxpayers.

The most well-known attack on Social Security made by the Texas governor comes in his “anti-Washington” book, “Fed Up!”. Published just this past fall, Perry’s tome devotes considerable space and robust rhetoric to bashing the nearly 80-year-old federal program, initiating the “Ponzi scheme” accusation and labeling it an unconstitutional “crumbling monument to the failure of the New Deal.”

Texas Gov. Rick Perry used to be pretty frank when it came to the country’s Social Security system. In his fiery anti-Washington book, “Fed Up!”, published last fall when he had no plans to run for president, Mr. Perry called the program, which turned 76 on Monday, “a crumbling monument to the failure of the New Deal.”

In the book and elsewhere in public comments, Perry has said he would prefer to see the federal role in Social Security eliminated and a state-based program set up in its place.

Faced with a growing controversy over the book’s language, Perry has since doubled down on the “Ponzi scheme” remarks and has even gone beyond that. At a presidential debate in California last week, Perry continued to refer to Social Security as a “Ponzi scheme” and defended his “provocative language.”

Elsewhere on the campaign trail, Perry has expanded on his previous attacks by claiming that Social Security is not only a “Ponzi scheme” but a “monstrous lie” to “future generations.”At an Iowa stop he broached such reforms to the program as a means-test for recipients and raising the retirement age, but did not specifically endorse how he would “fix” Social Security other than end it entirely.

“It is a Ponzi scheme for these young people. The idea that they’re working and paying into Social Security today, that the current program is going to be there for them, is a lie,” Perry said. “It is a monstrous lie on this generation, and we can’t do that to them.”

……..

He told the Ottumwa crowd that for people who are drawing Social Security or near eligibility “like me,” he wasn’t proposing a change in the program. But he said there should be a national conversation about potential changes for others, including raising the age of eligibility and establishing a threshold based on a person’s means.”Does Warren Buffett need to get Social Security? Maybe not,” he said.

Just last weekend, at an exclusive campaign fundraiser event in California, Gov. Perry was faced with more questions about just what he would do to “fix” Social Security. His answers were shockingly vague and exposed what appears to be a lack of understanding as to how the program actually works. Pressed for specifics, Perry suggested that he would “push back the age” of when “you start it.”

Reporters caught up with Perry outside a Palo Alto, Calif., fundraiser Friday, asking him what he would do to fix Social Security. He offered little guidance on how he would do so.

Is Perry even correct in his assumptions about the “dire” condition of Social Security? According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, no. Perry’s “Ponzi scheme” talk is blatant fear-mongering that ignores some important facts.

The CBO released a report just last month that says the Social Security trust fund will remain solvent until at least 2038 and that the program does not contribute to the federal government’s budget deficit.

No matter how exactly Perry would “fix” Social Security or “push back” when Americans “start it,” the very notion of major changes to the federal program remains overwhelmingly unpopular with most Americans. A recent CNN poll shows that two-thirds of Americans are opposed to any substantial reforms for Social Security, preferring instead to hike taxes on the wealthy in order to achieve deficit reduction.

But self-described “Tea Party” voters and conservative Republicans are more amenable to major changes in the government safety net of both Medicare and Social Security. Many in the GOP and some conservative Democrats have preceded Perry’s “Ponzi scheme” attacks by supporting either privatization of one or both programs, or the complete elimination of such “entitlements.”

Gov.  Perry’s tough anti-government rhetoric, especially that concerning the fate of Social Security, may play well with the Tea Party and the Republican Party’s base, but it could prove dangerous both for the governor and the GOP when presented to a wider audience. That has led to conflict within the GOP presidential field.

Now that he is the unquestioned frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination, Rick Perry’s rivals are stepping up to the plate and hitting him hard for his controversial stance on Social Security.

Taking the most direct shots at Perry is former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, the previous favorite for the GOP nomination. Seizing on the Texas governor’s “Ponzi scheme” controversy, Romney called Social Security a “good and moral thing” and predicted that Perry is “not going to get elected” because of his opposition to Social Security.

Presidential candidate Mitt Romney charged this week during a fund-raiser in Utah that Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s comments on Social Security being a “Ponzi scheme” make him unelectable and is an insult to seniors.”Gov. Perry is a good guy [but] he’s not going to get elected and the reason is no one in the history of this country has got elected by attacking Social Security,” Romney said Thursday at a reception in the Wells Fargo building in downtown Salt Lake City. “Social Security is a good thing. It is a good and moral thing to care for people who throughout their lives have put money aside, counting on that as a retirement plan.”

But Mitt Romney has also used tough rhetoric on Social Security in his recent past, not rising to the “Ponzi” level of Perry but claiming that the program is broken and that Americans have been “defrauded out of their Social Security.”

While Rick Perry may be guilty of the most violent and aggressive attacks on Social Security from a prominent political figure in recent memory, most of his Republican rivals have been supportive of proposals to weaken the government safety net. The same can be said about Republicans and Democratic lawmakers in Washington, where the mantra of spending cuts has seeped into the fabric of Capitol Hill and potentially devastating “reforms” to Medicare and Social Security have become likely.

And President Obama may have lost his chance at using the issue of Social Security against Gov. Perry in possible 2012 electoral meeting when he offered deep cuts in Medicare and Social Security as part of a package to raise the nation’s debt limit this summer.