The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Are You Smelling What He’s Stepping In?

Posted on | August 29, 2011 | 14 Comments

by Smitty

The mighty Iowahawk:
The Politico link has some follow-up:

Kay Henderson has more on this, emphasis mine:

Another reporter pressed the issue, asking if Perry believes Medicare is “unconstitutional” as well.

“I never said it was unconstitutional,” Perry said. “I look at Medicare just like I look at Social Security. They’re programs that aren’t working and we ought to have a national conversation about it. You know, those that have said I’ve said they’re unconstitutional — I’m going to have them read the book. That’s not what I said.”

In his book, Perry called Social Security something akin to a “bad disease” that was created “at the expense of respect for the Constitution and limited government.”

The whole episode underscores how difficult “Fed Up!,” which strongly favors states’ rights and is getting picked over by reporters and opposition researchers alike, will be for Perry to explain on the trail.

Discussions of major changes to Social Security are alarming to seniors, and while there hasn’t yet been public polling data on how the “Ponzi scheme” point plays in Florida, there likely will be.

For Perry, saying a version of “that’s not what I said” is unlikely to do the trick.

I’ll grant our over-reaching federal government this much nuance: these leech-like socialist programs are legal, insofar as legislation was excreted, signed into law, and has passed SCOTUS muster when brought up for review.

Past that, it’s long since time that we call the bluff on the Ruling Class cretins. The unicorn math doesn’t work outside the Beltway. The more Perry tells the truth, the more he paves the way for truth to leak into the settling pond of our current political discourse. (Readers who have been to Kandahar know what I mean.)

This blog strongly approves of any candidates with the guts to call ‘nonsense’ on the steaming pile of unsustainable crap comprised of our federal entitlement programs.

The interesting question raised by the Politico article is whether the Boomers are sufficiently enslaved by entitlements. Are they indoctrinated into beliefs about ‘rights’ to Social Security and Medicare that have become velvet handcuffs over time, so that the Boomers can be manipulated into turning against a candidate like a Perry, or a Cain, or a Santorum, who has the courage to speak the truth? I wish that ideas of liberty and American Exceptionalism were sufficiently strong to make that a silly question, but they are not.

O’Rourke famously noted that 2010 was not an election; it was a restraining order. 2012, therefore, will be liberty on trial, prosecuted by a Progressive werewolf in bespoke and Gucchis. Will conservatives rally around a McCotter, or even Palin? Or will they be deceived and support Romney, whose hair is perfect?

Bookmark and Share
Category: Rick Perry

Comments

  • http://thecampofthesaints.org Bob Belvedere

    Gov. Perry should stand by his belief that Social Security is unconstitutional, if that is what he wrote.  It’s about time we had a serious discussion about SS and you can’t have one unless the fact that it is clearly in violation of The Constitution is mentioned. As you said, Smitty: The more Perry tells the truth, the more he paves the way for truth to
    leak into the settling pond of our current political discourse    .

    The rubber has met the road and everything must be put on the table.  This is a serious matter that needs to be discussed before it gets any worse

    Mark Steyn is right: any nation not willing to discuss such things is one that is not serious about saving itself.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_MJGP4QXZ5PRW2MFA5E25CV2WNU rosalie

    And I wonder how Mitt Romney’s going to play this? 

  • http://dad29.blogspot.com dad29

    If nothing else, Perry has made this whole election campaign VERY interesting.  He’s a danger to the Ruling Class–albeit he’s a member in Good Standing–b/c he points out the fact that the Ruling Class is attempting to sustain the un-sustainable.

    Good for him!!

  • Blake

    Just because SCOTUS deemed a law Constitutional does not make it so.

    500 years ago, leading scientists were certain the sun revolved around the sun.

    The assumption that the sun revolved around the earth was sanctioned by the Church. And the Church was the supreme law back then.

  • Quartermaster

    SCOTUS has pretty much been a scofflaw since the court packing threat by FDR after they held the national Recovery Act unconstitutional. Much of what they have held to be constitutional is not.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/EU5DQWQTTHTPO4A4ZYSL3AAV2U Adjoran

    More and more seniors are recognizing changes will have to be made to the SS/MC programs if they are to survive.  Funny how the left is all a-twitter about “sustainable” development and agriculture but cannot bear to speak of the unsustainable  entitlement programs.

    But . . . McCotter?  The tool of Big Labor?  The guy who supports Card Check and other union plums?  They should strip your LP membership, if the Secretary ever gets back from the Medicinal Marijuana Shop . . .

  • Anonymous

    Many, particularly from the left would insist that once the Supreme Court has ruled that ruling can not be revisited. This became prevalent starting in the early 20th century. They like to cite “Stare Decisis” which I believe is Latin for the ” Brezhnev Doctrine”.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Chuck-Coffer/1296650908 Chuck Coffer

    “Just because SCOTUS deemed a law Constitutional does not make it so.”

    Yes it does. Until (if ever) it’s overturned, that is.

  • The Wondering Jew

    Absolutely correct.

    In all seriousness, here’s what the Republicans should do:  Since the Dems maintain Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme, I , and every other conservative, should demand back all of my contributions plus interest and the right to not continue having social security taxes taken out of our pay, since I believe I could get much better returns in the private markets, with much more assurance my assets will not be arbitrarily seized by the government in the future..

    The Government, of course, will not ever let us do this for the same Reason that Bernie Madoff wouldn’t.

  • jwallin

    Because the Public at large has acquiesced in the government takeover of providing for those who are unable to provide for themselves and the resulting reduction in local programs that are large enough to aid the number of people that need them, changes to entitlements must be done carefully and with an eye to not dumping those that rely on those programs for their very life.

    Right now, since the only thing standing between me and homelessness and misery with imminent illness if not death is SS,  I would be disinclined to support pulling the rug out from under those of us relying on these ‘entitlements’. (and who among you in my position could honestly say YOU would?)

    If however a measured and thoughtful plan was presented that would do so without putting people out of their homes and/or putting them into a hospital or grave, then I would be willing to consider that plan.

    It took 80 years for us to reach this point where government is the safety net for the old and infirm (and there really wasn’t a very good one in place before that). Now after so many years and the acquiescence of the populace and the largess of our elected officials AND the neglect of other means of providing that safety net, the Government is the only game in town.

    Apply for the benefits or be thrust into the street to die or get sick? What a choice. But were being sneered at as greedy for having made the choice between life or death.

    Relatives don’t take care of relatives much anymore and what do you do about those who don’t have any relatives to help them out?

    These are not simple questions with easy +/- answers. Unless of course the American public is willing to discard those who have worked and supported the country with their labor and loyalty for all these years.

    According to a survey done, the American public supports (by 80%) the idea that hospitals should treat ALL who show up at their door regardless of their ability to pay. I think that’s representative of a sentiment that we can’t just shove granpa or granma out into the cold because our pocketbook is getting thin.

    Yes SS relies upon future payees for it’s continuation. It’s NOT a Ponzi scheme though (which if you look things up you’ll see it’s not.) It IS unsustainable in it’s present form and the way it is determined who is eligible and how much they can receive AND it being tapped by Congress to balance the budget.

    Too many young folks are being very, very short sighted in thinking that SS can just be  abolished over night without any repercussions or damage to the American psyche.

    Think again.

  • Anonymous

    Timeless post, Smitty. And timely. We are at a crossroad, perhaps existential. This theme should run daily for eternity to check the onslaught of the Progressivism du jour and inevitable tyranny.

    I’m hoping we’ll take the Right path, but evidence and history says we won’t.

  • john lichtenstein

    There was a while that SS was underfunded but for a long time it’s not been. Putting aside 12% of gross for a career should be plenty to provide for an adequate retirement. The problem is that the SS trust fund has been relentlessly raided to pay for all the other stupid stuf the federal government does. It’s the federal government that’s the Ponzi scheme, and SS is the semi-legitimate front operation.

  • http://www.redstateeclectic.typepad.com AngelaTC

    Smitty, my friend, the SCOTUS repeatedly ruled that wealth redistribution schemes were unconstitutional  for the first 150 years of our nations existence,  and I’m sure you know that FDR only got it through by blustering about packing the court.  In fact, the justice that caved later called it the worst decision he had ever made.  Combine that with the fact that nowhere did the founding fathers ever say that SCOTUS was the final word on what was and what wasn’t constitutional and the position still has weight, no matter how much the left haughtily proclaims that “the science is settled.”

    The bigger issue is that a majority of people actually like the stupid program.

  • http://www.redstateeclectic.typepad.com AngelaTC

    Heck, SCOTUS said DUI roadblocks were unconstitutional, but they were going to allow them anyway.    People don’t care, as long as they think the government is keeping them safe. 

Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE