Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) made clear in an interview with Lawrence O’Donnell that he won’t even discuss basic reforms to Social Security until maybe “two decades from now.”
The thought of a 92-year-old Harry Reid still puttering around the senate in 2031 is indeed frightening, but not inconceivable, given the rate at which life expectancy continues to rise, which is one of the primary reasons why basic reforms to Social Security — such as raising the retirement age — are needed to ensure its solvency. Unfortunately, rather than act his own age, Reid has chosen the fingers-in-the-ears, ‘Na Na Na Na’ approach to governing.
Would someone please tell me what the idiot majority in Nevada was thinking when they reelected this guy??
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat's right, push it down the road. Democrats always think it's the future generations that have to find solutions to their economic decisions.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTwo words, tiredturtle: Sharron Angle.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseKrauthammer was right in his Friday column. It is clear that the official position of the Democrats and the Obama administration going into 2012 is to demagogue anything having to do with genuine reform of Social Security and other entitlements. Fine. They've chosen SOP for a political party on these matters. That's why it is imperative that the GOP select a standard-bearer who can overcome the demagoguery by clear and concise explanations why the status quo is no longer acceptable, explanations that persuade the general public to accept what the Dems, in their usual contempt for the public, do not believe they can or will accept. If the GOP does not select someone capable of making that persuasive case, the demagogues will have the upper hand come Nov. 2012. And we can then add Obamacare to the list of entitlements that will strangle this country.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseConsider that more people voted for Alvin Green in South Carolina than voted for Harry Reid. His strategy of turning off vast swaths of the electorate and skating on the votes of the people whose troughs are lined with his largesse was smokingly successful.
And Sharron Angle ran an awful campaign.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's becoming increasing clear (to me, anyways) that the Democrats feverishly want Social Security to fail, and they want it to fail sooner rather than later. Using Rahm Emannuel's axiom, they want the massive crisis so they can put it to use.
Once it fails, it will give them the impetus they want to raid the nation of its private wealth - wealth found in private pensions, 401Ks and other (formerly) reliable retirement investment accounts.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI agree with the other posters about Sharon Angle. If it wasn't for Christine O'Donnell, Angle would have the distinction of running the worst Senate campaign in the last 40+ years.
PS, this CAPTCHA is really getting annoying.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBush 43's Social Security reform proposal in 2005 wasn't perfect but, with Democratic cooperation, might have formed the basis for putting SS on a sustainable footing. Unfortunately, Senator Reid and Congresswoman Pelosi made a considered decision. They decided that they would rather let Social Security collapse in their children's lifetimes than have George Bush get the credit for saving it.
And it worked. After Bush's debacle no president will have the nerve to try it again. Considered purely as an exercise in political tactics it was an impressive accomplishment--Bush had just been re-elected and Democrats were still in a minority in both houses.
Reid and Pelosi, of course, have access to all relevant actuarial data. They know what they have done (he sorta kinda admits it in this video clip with the flippant talk about following up in twenty years). They have guaranteed that the grandchildren that they use as campaign props will grow up in a bankrupt country. How they sleep at night I have no idea, but hey, Bush was deprived of political momentum right after his re-election, so that makes it all OK, right?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse