During the George W Bush presidency, Republicans broached the idea of investing a small portion of social security taxes into the stock market to increase returns and improve the solvency of the program. The Dems went apoplectic and ran a series of TV ads showing Republicans pushing elderly people in wheelchairs off cliffs. Talk of reform quickly died.
Wow, that's some *serious* historical revisionism.
"Despite ... sizable GOP majorities and the president's own barnstorming across the country to sell his proposal, creating private accounts for Social Security became so toxic that it was never brought to a vote in either the House or Senate."
My favorite was Rob Simmons: "Why stir up a political hornet's nest when there is no urgency? When does the program go belly up? 2042. I will be dead by then."
It wasn't just predictably pukey Northeast GOPers, either. Grassley (Iowa) and Graham (South Carolina) were cowards, and a Tennessean in the House said his "conservative supporters ... don't want this money borrowed to create voluntary personal accounts":
The point isn't that Democrats weren't awful -- they were. (And they are.) The point is that outside of the Bush White House, Republican support for (mild) reform was very close to zero. It was very close to zero because Americans, with few exceptions, love "free" stuff. No politician, no political party, is going to change that sad reality. Only fiscal/financial catastrophe will force solutions. We're not quite there yet, but perhaps we will be within a decade.
As always, it ain't Ds vs. Rs. It's the Enlightenment vs. statism. One party is *completely* committed to the latter, the other is *mostly* committed to the latter....
Hey, give the GOP of today credit. Can't find even one of its flunkies who's willing to PRETEND to want to fix the problem:
"[C]ongressional Republicans show little appetite for reducing Social Security. Former President Donald Trump opposed any Social Security cuts. Sen. Josh Hawley, angling to be Trump's heir, argues that Republicans should abandon any 'fiddling' with Social Security."
During the George W Bush presidency, Republicans broached the idea of investing a small portion of social security taxes into the stock market to increase returns and improve the solvency of the program. The Dems went apoplectic and ran a series of TV ads showing Republicans pushing elderly people in wheelchairs off cliffs. Talk of reform quickly died.
Wow, that's some *serious* historical revisionism.
"Despite ... sizable GOP majorities and the president's own barnstorming across the country to sell his proposal, creating private accounts for Social Security became so toxic that it was never brought to a vote in either the House or Senate."
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/9/13781088/social-security-privatization-why-failed
My favorite was Rob Simmons: "Why stir up a political hornet's nest when there is no urgency? When does the program go belly up? 2042. I will be dead by then."
https://www.nhregister.com/news/article/Simmons-remarks-create-conflict-11648681.php
It wasn't just predictably pukey Northeast GOPers, either. Grassley (Iowa) and Graham (South Carolina) were cowards, and a Tennessean in the House said his "conservative supporters ... don't want this money borrowed to create voluntary personal accounts":
https://cwa-union.org/news/entry/privatization_scheme_riles_many_in_gop
The point isn't that Democrats weren't awful -- they were. (And they are.) The point is that outside of the Bush White House, Republican support for (mild) reform was very close to zero. It was very close to zero because Americans, with few exceptions, love "free" stuff. No politician, no political party, is going to change that sad reality. Only fiscal/financial catastrophe will force solutions. We're not quite there yet, but perhaps we will be within a decade.
As always, it ain't Ds vs. Rs. It's the Enlightenment vs. statism. One party is *completely* committed to the latter, the other is *mostly* committed to the latter....
It may have been historical revisionism but it was great historical revisionism!
Hey, give the GOP of today credit. Can't find even one of its flunkies who's willing to PRETEND to want to fix the problem:
"[C]ongressional Republicans show little appetite for reducing Social Security. Former President Donald Trump opposed any Social Security cuts. Sen. Josh Hawley, angling to be Trump's heir, argues that Republicans should abandon any 'fiddling' with Social Security."
https://www.aei.org/op-eds/why-congress-will-never-reform-social-security/
#WhyIAmNotARepublican