Misc Commentary For Jan 6, 2005

by John Hawkins | January 6, 2005 11:58 pm

— It looks like Crossfire[1] is history which I can’t say saddens me in the least. The less political shows that feature a bunch of people shouting at each other, the better as far as I’m concerned.

— Alberto Gonzales is the latest conservative minority to be targeted by Democrats for silly reasons and Linda Chavez[2] explains why,

“It irks some Democrats that a Republican president keeps naming blacks and Hispanics to such unprecedented, high-level posts. Liberals believe they own the franchise on minorities and can’t stand any Hispanic or black who breaks rank.”

As long as minority groups stay subservient to the white liberals who run the Democratic Party, they get a free pass from the left. But, the moment they refuse to toe that liberal line, look out, it’s time for another “high tech lynching” as Justice Thomas called it. The Democrats always deny that race has anything to do with it, even when they’re caught explicitly targeting a conservative because of his race[3], but everybody knows that is exactly what’s going on…

— I’m a very optimistic person, but if I were a Democrat, this news[4], that they’re considering sticking with a proven loser like McAuliffe, would probably put me into a funk…

“Senior Democrats are trying to persuade national Chairman Terry McAuliffe to continue his service as party chairman, especially if none of the current candidates gains momentum in the race to replace him.

…McAuliffe met privately Wednesday with several Democratic senators on Capitol Hill, and was asked again to consider serving for another year or two, Democrats say. McAuliffe’s response was not immediately known, but he has been cool to such overtures in the past.
Democratic senators reportedly at the meeting included Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and Charles Schumer of New York.

“Terry McAuliffe has been a great chair and he could continue that,” Schumer said Wednesday. “The bottom line is that Democrats have a lot of good candidates to lead us.”

Hey, since the Dems are sticking with losers, why don’t they run Jimmy Carter again in 2008?

— From PoliPundit[5],

You’ve got to stand back in sheer awe at the lunacy of what Senate Democrats will be doing today. They will:

1. Beat up on the first Hispanic ever nominated to become Attorney General.
2. Beat up on him for being too harsh on our terrorist enemies.
3. Formally challenge the legitimacy of a presidential election that was decided by 3.5 million votes in the largest turnout ever.

You know why they’re doing this? Because they’ve gone so far to the left over the last thirty years or so and lost so many moderates over the last 30 years or so, that conspiracy nuts, America haters, race hustling poverty pimps, have become a significant part of their base and they feel a need to cater to them. Expect it to continue to get worse over the next four years at least…

— How can you be a famous economist like Paul Krugman and have absolutely no understanding or knowledge of human nature? Read what he has to say about the non-existent Social Security trust fund[6] and you’ll see what I mean…

“So where’s the imminent crisis? Privatizers say the trust fund doesn’t count because it’s invested in U.S. government bonds, which are “meaningless i.o.u.’s.” Readers who want a long-form debunking of this sophistry can read my recent article in the online journal The Economists’ Voice (www.bepress.com/ev).

The short version is that the bonds in the Social Security trust fund are obligations of the federal government’s general fund, the budget outside Social Security. They have the same status as U.S. bonds owned by Japanese pension funds and the government of China. The general fund is legally obliged to pay the interest and principal on those bonds, and Social Security is legally obliged to pay full benefits as long as there is money in the trust fund.

There are only two things that could endanger Social Security’s ability to pay benefits before the trust fund runs out. One would be a fiscal crisis that led the U.S. to default on all its debts. The other would be legislation specifically repudiating the general fund’s debts to retirees.

That is, we can’t have a Social Security crisis without a general fiscal crisis – unless Congress declares that debts to foreign bondholders must be honored, but that promises to older Americans, who have spent most of their working lives paying extra payroll taxes to build up the trust fund, don’t count.

Politically, that seems far-fetched.

So Krugman in essence admits that there is no money in the Social Security “trust fund,” but that the government will still pay off. Really?

Well remember that taxpayer funds are used to pay for Social Security. So, when we’re, let’s say, paying out 300 million dollars a year more for Social Security than it’s taking in, Krugman believes what — that the people caught on the wrong end of the ponzi scheme are just going to say, “Ok, jack up our taxes every year to pay for your promises”?

There’s not a chance in the world that will happen. Instead, when taxes get high enough or the debt gets too large, the taxpayers are going to revolt and demand that the amount paid out to Social Security recipients be decreased. Then either the Social Security checks will have to be reduced or the age limit will go up. The idea that taxpayers are just going to “grin and bear it” long-term as their taxes continue to surge upwards to pay for Social Security is pure fantasy and anyone with even a modicum of common sense understands that. That’s why Bush wants to reform Social Security now, so we don’t end up waiting until the program is in the red already to make decisions. It’s proactive, it’s smart, and if the Democrats actually cared more about keeping the program solvent than trying to deny Republicans a political victory, they’d be working with Bush to find a solution they can live with…