Social security

Charles Krauthammer writes that Social Security is, indeed, a Ponzi scheme.  It’s also “the most vital…of all social programs,” and it can easily be saved from collapse — mostly by (gradually) raising the age of eligibility:  “

If a debate more than four months before the first vote is cast can influence the outcome of a presidential nomination race, the debate last night among eight Republicans should aid Mitt Romney’s candidacy. Seldom has there been as clear a winner.

Rick Perry's doubling down on his "Social Security is a Ponzi scheme" rhetoric during last night's debate could be beneficial for him in a Republican primary but hurtful in a general election. And while the Mitt Romney campaign was quick to pounce on the statement with its not-so-subtle "PERRY DOES NOT BELIEVE SOCIAL SECURITY SHOULD EXIST" press release, Perry seems to be sticking by the characterization. "Maybe it's time to have some provocative language in this country," he said in the debate.

There is a certain irony, as well as much truth, in Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s drumbeat of warnings about the consequences of further cuts to U.S. military budgets of the sort threatened under the current deficit reduction law.

In today's Washington Post, Robert Samuelson argues that it was liberal protectors of the entitlements, not the Tea Party, that "won" the most in last week's debt deal. The military, he says, was the real loser:

James Pethokoukis: The jobs report from hell.

"What’s In A Name? Dems Support Social Security Benefit Cut — By Calling It Something Else"

"Obama move on Social Security puts him at odds with Dem leaders Reid, Pelosi"

"Could Donald Trump reenter the presidential race?"

Megan McArdle: "Why Pensions are Underfunded"

Bill Kristol, with Mara Liasson and Charles Krauthammer, last night on Fox News:

In February, Defense secretary Robert Gates and Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, sounded a cautionary note at a congressional hearing on the defense budget. "We shrink from our global security responsibilities at our peril," Gates warned members of Congress. "Retrenchment brought about by short-sighted cuts could well lead to costlier and more tragic consequences later, indeed, as they always have in the past."

In proposing to cut another $400 billion from U.S. defense budgets over the next ten years as part of his deficit reduction counter-offer, Barack Obama’s words were few. Yet they were revealing.

If there is one thing that political strategists, pollsters, and elected officials of both parties have agreed on for decades, it’s that entitlement reform is a sure political loser. Social Security is the “third rail”—touch it and you die. Suggest changes to Medicaid and you don’t care about the poor. Propose modest reforms to Medicare and you’re the target of a well-funded “Mediscare” campaign that ensures your defeat.

Two days ago, I wrote that Republicans should be bold on entitlement reform. They should aggressively and sensibly make the case that, with mandatory spending by itself now surpassing total federal revenues (for this year, according to the president’s projections), we cannot in good conscience continue down this road and imperil future generations.