Cuccinelli Perpetuates Right-Wing Lies

Social Security (4.00 / 1)

Making Social Security solvent for the foreseeable future would simply mean raising the level of income that pays the Social Security and Medicare tax. Those two programs are not "welfare." They are earned benefits for which Americans pay taxes their entire working life. As for the other social programs Cooch trashes, they are marks of as modern,civilized society.

 

---

by: Elaine in Roanoke @ Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 00:12:10 AM UTC

Even former RNC Chair Michael Steele can't stomach Kookinelli's lunacy (0.00 / 0)

Follow me on Twitter. Follow Blue Virginia on Facebook and Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 00:30:40 AM UTC

I've figured it out (0.00 / 0)

Clearly, Cuccinelli's strategy must be to try to make Democrats overconfident by running so far to the right that he would embarrass Joe McCarthy.  

Otherwise, there's no way he would be stupid enough to attack Social Security and Medicare IN WRITING just 10 months before the election.  No -- it must be a trick!

Crush "Crimes Against Nature" Cuccinelli! Now on Twitter.

---

by: kindler @ Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 02:35:42 AM UTC

More of a trap than a trick ... (0.00 / 0)

There are a lot of bad things one can say about Ken Cuccinelli and I've said most of them.  Reactionary, inexperienced, professional politician, a man who claims to hate government regulation but then makes his livelihood manipulating that regulation ...

One thing I've never said is that Ken Cuccinelli is stupid.

First, I think everybody ought to read the whole book before getting their knickers in a knot.  My understanding is that the book will be available in 11 days.  I wouldn't put it past Cuccinelli to preview some controversial statements, let the backlash start and then prove that the statements were reasonable and appear to be taken out of context by his detractors.

Second, a general argument against an overly powerful federal government will play well with many in Virginia.  Whether the people on this blog like that argument or not is irrelevant.  None of you will vote for him anyway.  How will it play to the independents?  There are a lot of people in this state who think Virginia should be able to "go its own way" more than the federal government presently allows.  I am one of them.

Finally, it's a clever slap at Terry McAuliffe.  McAulliffe is often pictured with Clinton and Obama - national politicians.  He has never held elected office.  Portraying him as a man who will sell out Virginia's unique values to the federal government is clever.  Many of you on this blog do not understand the last presidential election.  You see a clear mandate for progressive policies and a striking endorsement for Obama.  Others see a vote for the lesser of two very poor choices and a hope that Washington will go away.  Remember, the federal government's approval rating is worse than Ken Cuccinelli's.  Cuccinelli might be very smart to run against the federal government and it apparent apologist Terry McAuliffe than to run on the merits of his own policies.

     

---

by: DJRippert @ Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 15:06:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Running against big guv'mint in general is popular (0.00 / 0)

It's the specifics that get pols in trouble.

If you can think of examples of candidates winning by attacking Social Security, please share.  

Crush "Crimes Against Nature" Cuccinelli! Now on Twitter.

---

by: kindler @ Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 22:43:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Please.... (0.00 / 0)

If you think that attacking all the people who get any sort of government assistance, whether earned or as the way a civilized people should treat the less fortunate among us, is a neat way to get the independent vote, I will simply point you to the recently ended presidential campaign. How did that 47% comment work out for you, Mitt?

And, please don't tell me Virginia is different. Who won Virginia??

The problem we Democrats have is making sure the voter turnout is enough to overcome the usual off-election turnout. Independents don't care about Cuccinelli's obsession with lady parts, contraception, or the 47%.

---

by: Elaine in Roanoke @ Sat Feb 02, 2013 at 00:37:10 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Social Securty is not self-funding. (0.00 / 0)

For a few years now, Social Security has paid out more than its taken in. In order to cover the balance, the government must either raise taxes, reduce spending, or borrow money.

---

by: loudoun independent @ Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 02:51:44 AM UTC

Raise the cap on the payroll tax. (0.00 / 0)

That should solve any problem for several decades at least.

Follow me on Twitter. Follow Blue Virginia on Facebook and Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 11:13:15 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The Stimulus Cap on Payroll Taxes (0.00 / 0)

The shortfall in the past three years for the Social Security fund was caused by two things:
1. A temporary 2% drop in the payroll tax to stimulate the economy (which most Republicans agreed to when President Obama proposed it). That tax cut ended on January 1, 2013.
2. High unemployment. As the recovery continues, unless it is derailed by the GOP insisting on that sequester, the funding for Social Security will return to previous levels.

The long-term budget deficit problem the nation has is just that...long term. It must be dealt with over the long term. It is foolish right now to slam the brakes on the economy by drastically cutting government spending before private spending regains its momentum...basic macroeconomics.

---

by: Elaine in Roanoke @ Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 12:38:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

SS (0.00 / 0)

Paying out SS does not effect the budget. The SS trust fund as I understand is about 3 trillion bucks. SS can take care of its self. It is wrong to say we must raise taxes, reduce spending or borrow money because of SS. Maybe those things apply to the regular budget.

---

by: Jim B @ Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 16:04:51 PM UTC

There is no trust fund. (0.00 / 0)

As the OP noted, it's been a "cash cow" for government, who has found all sorts of uses for the taxes it has collected in the name of Social Security. Every time they do so, they issue a special Treasury bond, or essentially an IOU. They can cash those bonds in to pay out SS benefits... but in order to find money for the bond, they must raise taxes, reduce spending, or borrow money.  

---

by: loudoun independent @ Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 18:59:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

But... (0.00 / 0)

There's no reason to expect Social Security recipients to pay for any misuse of their funds. However, you are disregarding the fact that when employment is below 7%, the income derived from payroll taxes is funding completely the annual payout required to meet the fund's obligation.

There will not be a shortfall of income into the fund below what is required to meet payout for many more years. The problem after that can be solved by simply raising the amount of income subject the SSI taxes.

It is a fallacy to look at the SS fund as some sort of sacred pile of money (Sorry, Al Gore, but there has never been a "lock box.") For a long time, however, the SS funds were not put into the general budget of the Federal government. That changed during the Vietnam War. Even so, there is not now any deficit in SS funding. It has always been a program funded by the present working generation and paid out to the retired working generation.

Any attempt to change the Social Security regulations beyond what was done during the Reagan administration is simply motivated by some sort of desire to destroy that social safety net for the elderly.

---

by: Elaine in Roanoke @ Sat Feb 02, 2013 at 00:29:49 AM UTC

[ Parent ]