Thursday, February 03, 2005

Bankruptcy or Solvency

The Republicans say that in 2042 Social Security will be bankrupt. The Democrats say it will be solvent. The Democrats line is that they will be able to pay 72 cents on the dollar. I don't know about you, but I am sure that when I am paying back my loans that I accrued going to law school that the bank won't accept 72 cents on the dollar. In fact if I can only pay 72 cents on the dollar on my loans then I will have to declare bankruptcy. Maybe I can tell the bank that I am solvent and they'll just have to accept it.
I think this is where the Democrats could have gained some real juicy political capital. If they had agreed with Republicans on social security. The reason for this is not that complex. First off their solution is to raise taxes and throw more money at the problem. Now the reason social security is failing, a completey bi-partisan fault, is that there was more money then was necessary and the people in the government dipped their hands into the fund promising to pay it back later. Also baby boomers are retiring. The Democrats think that throwing more money is the solution for most things. Anyways recent polls have shown somewhere in the region of over 50 percent of likely black voters support private accounts. This is a demographic they lost big in. Also I would assume mexican americans would like it too because both of those groups have shorter life spans comparatively. So they don't get as much in return and their family doesn't get the left over. So they are paying money into a system where they will never see a return. If the political left said yes we see there is a problem here and we will do what everyone thinks we won't do and fix it with the Republicans then that would be huge. Suddenly they look like the party that is coming to the middle and not being devisive and in the next Congressional elections when Republicans are talking about how they saved social security it could suddenly become a non-issue because the Democrats could claim it also. I think it would be a wise move politically. I am sure they would take some blows, but those are in traditionally liberal areas like California and New York and Massachusetts. Places they will win anyways and it will give them tremendous political capitol in the midwest and south where they can't seem to buy a vote.
Next while I am ranting I just want to say those of us on the right are not fooled by the move you Democrats are making. It is a shrewd move, but I don't think it will work. What move you ask? Well that would be having Hillary Clinton running around the country saying how moderate she is and how wonderfully she wants to find common ground on all of the hugely devisive issues. Then you go and elect Howard Dean to be the leader of your party. Your plan is to make Hillary look like she is more moderate than she actually is. It is supposed to distance her from the far left and make her more palatable to those in the states where Democrats have a problem winning. I just want to let you Democrats know that we know what you are up to. Also Hillary's votes will be brought up and she is a northeastern liberal. Yeah I know she is from Illinois and lived in Arkansas with Bill, but as soon as she got a chane she went straight to where her ideas were accepted. People in the south will see her as a northeastern liberal just as much as they did Kerry and they will look at her worse because not only did she move up there, but she defected from a southern state. Also Dean is a crazy and will do more harm than the party can sustain anyways. I mean yesterday he said he hated republicans and everything they stand for. Aren't the Democrats the ones who said that we need to come to the center and mend the nation. Hopefully he goes into one of his hollering spells and loses his voice.
So in sum if I ran the Democratic party they would be winning a lot more races then they are now.


Post a Comment

<< Home