Having written about the Hype surrounding the Ron Paul campaign and having gotten an interesting comment from Zagurim (who by the way has an excellent breakdown of the funding sources that go beyond the fund raising totals mentioned in my Hype post) who asked how I would vote in a Hillary vs Ron Paul match-up.
Anyone who has read my Hillary post knows that I think she is the only chance the Democrats have of losing this November and that I personally Would NOT vote for her. I replied to Zagurim that I would either vote for Dr. Paul or for Mickey Mouse and that I have NO intention of ever coming any closer than that to pledging to vote RP in the general. But blanking my ballot is not a real attractive option. So I realized maybe I should take a closer look at Ron Paul on the issues, beyond the hype. And today I start with Social Security.
First, a thanks to my Blog Catalog buddy, Cindy, who kindly provided me with a link for ronpaullibrary.org which has a wealth of Dr. Paul's position papers and other writings. I found a concise document out-lining Paul's Social Security positions, which can be summed up by referencing three bills related to Social Security introduced by Rep. Paul in January 2007 at the start of the 110th Congress:
H.R. 191 Senior Citizens Tax Elimination Act
H.R. 219 Social Security Preservation Act
H.R. 190 The Social Security for Americans Only Act
(click on any bill number to read summary or full text information at OpenCongress.org)
The first of these bills, I happen to agree with completely. American workers paid taxes on the income that they contributed into the Social Security trust fund and it seems wrong to tax that income again when it is paid out of the trust fund as benefits.
The second bill sounds good. It seems to say simply that Social Security funds must be invested in interest bearing accounts and can not be lent to other government entities interest free nor used to pay any other government obligations. This sounds to be a great deal like the "lockbox" concept that was a key element of many plans that have been floated to save Social Security and it does sound good. The problem for me it that I haven't a sophisticated enough understanding of law or finance to really know if the bill will as promised insure Social Security's continued solvency. Does this bill really address any of the fundamental problems with Social Security that are often attributed to demographic changes and increasing longevity rather than Congress' raiding the cookie jar?
The third bill is the one where I Know I'm going to piss off friends and make new enemies. I confess to being the only Liberal extant who is opposed to illegal immigration, opposed to "amnesty" and on this issue find myself strangely standing in a corner with the freepers. (And man do they creep me out.) The following is quoted from a post on my books blog, The Thin Red Line:
And then this issue of illegal immigration seems to re-draw these lines rather strangely, and to a large extent I find myself cast uncomfortably on the side of the freepers.
I believe that illegal immigrants depress wages for all Americans and utterly reject the argument that we must have illegal immigrants because there are so many jobs that American's just won't do. (It seems to me that argument is really an insistence on being allowed to have illegal immigrants so as not to be forced to provide the level of wages, benefits and working conditions most Americans would likely demand.) Certainly, I believe that America should continue to welcome immigrants, that we should develop a fair process for rationing the privilege of coming here that takes into account both the needs of business for additional labor and the limits of our resources to care for, succor and support new arrivals, while actively and effectively enforcing our immigration laws, primarily through stiff financial and criminal penalties for those who employ illegals.
The "compromise" immigration reform currently being debated in Washington does none of this.
I do, however, have a problem with the fact that this bill would not in any way exempt illegal aliens from paying into the Social Security trust fund through OASDI deductions (which are of course Mandatory) on paychecks earned in the United States. I am uncomfortable with the idea of forcing undocumented workers to supplement the retirements of everyone else. As Ron Paul argues strongly elsewhere money you pay into Social Security out of every paycheck is there for you to live on when you get old or sick and not for the government to spend on anything else. So I think that if you pay into the fund you earn the right to draw out of the fund.
My biggest concern about all three of these bills, however is that since being introduced and referred to committee in January, absolutely Nothing has happened on any of these bills. No hearings, no votes, no nothing. Which leaves me wondering "is any of this actual serious legislation that Ron Paul had any intention of pushing through Congress or are these three bills basically campaign promises written in the Congressional Record, the use of a Congressional Seat as a Presidential Platform printing department?
On the surface I like much of what Ron Paul says about Social Security. But I lack faith that his prescribed solutions would solve the real problems. And I also wonder whether he is legislating or grand-standing with these bills.
6 comments:
From what I've gathered so far, I hope that Ron Paul wins the GOP nomination. I really don't want a big-government social conservative on the GOP ticket, and I'm sure virtually every liberal, paleoconservative, and libertarian would agree.
Cheers,
Ryan
DeRamos.org
Simply put Ron Paul will end much of our foreign entanglements which will reduce our budget considerably and aside from many tax cuts he would push the congress to pass through, primarily in the beginning his goal would be to use those funds to 1.) start paying off the deficit
2.) money to take care of people who have been stuck sucking on the government tit.
Young people would start moving away from government programs and for help or assistance they would need to seek that from private sources such as charities.
Remember most of this Paul would be pushing the congress to take care of, the ending foreign entanglements I believe he could do single handedly as none of those are declared wars, and thus the power is not in the hands of congress to end those conflicts (or lack there of), but in the presidents hands.
A couple comments on this excellent post. First, I don't think that illegal immigration is a left/right issue. It cuts across political affiliations, and you will find ardent supporters on each side of the issue from across the political spectrum.
As to SS, there is a very easy fix that most people don't realize exists. Take off the cap on the amount of income that you have to pay SS taxes on. For instance, I am lucky enough in my career that by the time November hits, I have already paid all the SS tax I owe, and so the last two months of the year, I have no SS taxes taken out. Only the first $95,000 of income is taxable.
So, yes, it is unfair to expect illegals to pay into a system they will be locked out of. But it is also unfair to expect a vast majority of workers to pay taxes on 100% of their salaries, while a fortunate few pay it only on percentage. I doubt most people even know how the system works. If they did, there would be a huge outcry.
Thanks infonista, for a comment that adds light rather than heat. I totally agree with you about subjecting 100% of earning so OASDI and think that would be the bill that Really should be labled the Ensuring Social Security Solvency Act...so my question now, if I can find anyone to answer it is Do ANY of the Presidential candidates advocate removing the cap?
Well, as for your last question, I don't think that there is any legislation that Ron Paul introduces that he isn't serious about getting pushed through. The problem is that most of the legislation he introduces cuts straight to the heart of the issues being addressed and tend to scare the existing economic and political power structure in Washington. Thus, the vast majority of the bills Paul introduces get stonewalled in committee and never actually make it to a vote. If it were any other politician, I would agree with and share your skepticism about the possibility that he is using these as a means to boost support for his campaign. However, if you look at Paul's congressional record, he is one of very few whose personal and political history give no evidence to justify such skepticism, unlike most politicians (including most every other Presidential candidate in '08).
Putting aside the effect on illegal aliens -- I'm a legal alien, a foreign national who holds a Green Card, and who has been paying Social Security taxes for my entire tenure in the United States. If I'm reading it right, HR 190 would deny me Social Security benefits.
If this bill is being sold on the "unfairness" of benefiting people who haven't paid, you might also consider the people who've paid but who won't be benefiting.
Post a Comment