Social Security and the price we pay

Social Security.  The name conjures feelings almost immediately.  My mother recently started on Social Security.  Now, it such troubled financial times, it’s being looked at as a source of much of our problems.  In reality, it’s part of a whole other problem that has little to do with the national budget.

Social Security was originally designed to be a trust fund system where money went in and, when you retired, you got your money back out.  It would have worked, especially in those days, because a lot of people paid in via taxation, but died before they reached retirement age.  This would created a bit of a cushion for those who actually drew out more than they paid in.

However, over time that trust fund looked mighty tempting to the folks in DC.  Money got tight, and like a parent raiding their kid’s piggy bank in the dark of night, they took money from it to pay for other pet projects.  This depleted the trust fund and its cushion so severely that it became a Ponzi scheme.  We today pay into the system so that other can draw it out. The understanding is that we will get our money back from future generations.

However, more and more of us are coming to believe that Social Security won’t be there when we reach retirement age.

The left goes nuts whenever anyone mentions privatizing social security, despite evidence that it would actually benefit retirees far more than the current system ever has.  Some studies suggest that we could be a nation of millionaires, while fears percolate that the stock market would wipe out retirees income in short order.

Liberty Links: Morning Reads for Monday, February 7th

Below is a collection of several links that we didn’t get around to writing about, but still wanted to post for readers to examine. The stories typically range from news about prominent figures in the liberty movement, national politics, the nanny state, foreign policy and free markets.

Mike Huckabee is a big government Republican

While visiting with Judge Andrew Napolitano on Freedom Watch this past weekend, Mike Huckabee, a potential GOP candidate for president in 2012, took issue with libertarians and free marketers over his record, saying, “If a libertarian thinks he’s a better Republican and calls people like me a RINO or a liberal, I have a real problem with that.”

Here is the segment:

While many are fans of Huckabee because of his support of the “Fair Tax,” there is little question that he is a fiscal liberal. During his tenure as Governor of Arkansas, Huckabee gave residents of the state a net tax hike of over $505 million to finance his big government agenda. His record on taxes is worse than Bill Clinton.

Small Businesses: Washington’s Economic Policies are “scaring us to death”

See Video

Sorry, Tax Hike Mike, Mitch Daniels is right

Recently, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels suggested economic issues should the focus for the next president. Of course, this didn’t sit well with an authoritarian like Tax Hike Mike Huckabee:

“Let me be clear…the issue of life and traditional marriage are not bargaining chips nor are they political issues,” the former Arkansas governor and 2008 Republican presidential candidate said in an e-mail to supporters Friday. “They are moral issues. I didn’t get involved in politics just to lower taxes and deficit spending though I believe in both and have done it as a Governor. But I want to stay true to the basic premises of our civilization.”

Daniels’ comments came in an interview with the Weekly Standard, during which the Indiana Republican said the next president “would have to call a truce on the so-called social issues” so he or she could focus on the fiscal problems facing the country.

The comments have riled several prominent social conservatives, including Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, who called them “astonishing.”
In his e-mail Friday, Huckabee said Daniel’s sentiment was “heartbreaking.”

“For those of us who have labored long and hard in the fight to educate the Democrats, voters, the media and even some Republicans on the importance of strong families, traditional marriage and life to our society, this is absolutely heartbreaking. And that one of our Republican ‘leaders’ would suggest this truce, even more so,” he wrote.

Obama Budget Director Denies President Ever Made A “No New Taxes” Pledge

Further evidence that President Obama’s pledge not to raise taxes on the middle class is going to be ignored by the White House:

Remember President Obama’s supposedly inviolable pledge—repeatedly uttered during the 2008 campaign and at countless town meetings since the inauguration—that he would never raise taxes on middle-class citizens who earn $250,000 a year or less?

This morning at a Manhattan breakfast sponsored by Thomson Reuters, White House Budget Director Peter Orszag threw that pledge out the window. Instead, he described Obama’s “read my lips, no new taxes” pledge as a “stance” and a “preference” that is subject to study by the president’s newly-formed bipartisan Commission on Fiscal Responsibility.

For the record, lets go back in time to 30 July 2008:

Which may remind you of another event 20 years earlier:

Big brother is watching you, Pennsylvania (or are they?)

The Pennsylvania Department of Revenue is running an ad promoting tax amnesty in a big brother way.

Obama: Value Added Tax A “Novel” Idea For The United States

See Video

Paul Ryan on the Regime in Washington

See Video

Paul Ryan: Class warfare makes good politics, but terrible economics

See Video

The views and opinions expressed by individual authors are not necessarily those of other authors, advertisers, developers or editors at United Liberty.