If the election was held today, Scott Walker couldn’t win his home state.
If Walker is the nominee, he will win Wisconsin. That’s a firm prediction.
… and not much else – not a firm prediction, because he will not win the nomination.
Why would the music stop anytime? People will keep paying Social Security taxes, so the system will have a steady funding stream. The question is, will it continue to fund benefits at 100% of their projected levels at the time the trust fund runs out, if it runs out sometime in the 2030s?
And while the answer to that is no, benefits would have to decrease by about 25% unless additional funding is obtained, that 25% decrease hardly constitutes a full stop.
BTW, do you remember how the projected date for the emptying of the Social Security trust fund kept on moving further into the future during the Clinton years, then has been mostly treading water ever since? What this says is that the best thing one can do for trust fund solvency is getting people back to work. Unless the Fed prematurely puts a damper on our recovery in the next year or so, that expiration date should start moving further away from us again.
But what it also says is that the Federal government should have done more, sooner, to get people back to work. Unfortunately, the GOP has stood firmly in the way for the past five years.
Another thing about Christie’s proposed benefits cap: it would actually save very little money. The only point to it is political: to get upper middle class people to regard Social Security as something that Other People get.
And raising the age for full benefits to 69 - that’s genuinely cruel. For people like me (and most of us here, probably) who work at a keyboard and monitor all day - we won’t be affected by it all that much. We’ll live long, and it won’t hurt us that much.
But people who do physical work for a living, who need to retire earlier than we do because their bodies break down from their work - they won’t be able to. And while the life expectancy of people like us continues to rise, the life expectancy for the lower half of the income distribution hasn’t budged in decades. Christie’s proposal would hit them hard - some would just have a poorer retirement because they’d still need to retire at 62, just with smaller Social Security checks, and others would simply have to work until they drop.
Christie’s proposal will win him points with the ‘liberal’ WaPo editorial page (Robert J. ‘not paul’ Samuelson was surely ecstatic) but it’s a horrible idea, and fortunately it won’t save his Presidential hopes. He’s been toast for months, and nothing here changes this.
John Huntsman also tried to bolster his conservative credentials with really bold ideas, in his case tax reform.
Why would he? His ratings are tanking.
Looks like Wisconsinites are having buyer’s remorse after giving this creep another term. Wisconsin people are nuts. Some are petitioning to rename Lake Michigan to Lake Wisconsin.
His approval has been good enough throughout most of his tenure to win elections. I have no doubt they’ll be good enough come the 2016 election. That’s what Koch money is for.
adaher has no doubt… better keep this to ourselves – we don’t want Walker’s campaign manager to have a coronary.
It’s just what other countries are doing. People are living longer and the cost of supporting them is enormous. The UK is doing it gradually, though: 67 as early as 2026 and 68 as early as 2044. The former affects me. France increased their retirement age from 60 to 62.
You’re still reading it very literally.
I’d say it’s a joke based on two premises that most conservatives would agree with:
-
We should simplify the tax code, and reduce the amount of IRS employees needed as a result.
-
We should focus more on securing our borders, including increasing the amount of border patrol.
Nothing really groundbreaking about either of those positions. They’re both things that the majority of Americans would support.
It’s only by interpreting the joke in a hyper-literal way that it becomes remotely a “dumb policy proposal”, which it’s not. Unless you are so partisan that you can’t see clearly, like that Slate article or many of the posters on this board.
Yeah. I really don’t like Christie, and I don’t even agree with the details of his proposal. But I’ve got to say I’m impressed. It’s a ballsy move, and really makes me think much more highly of him.
This is what elections should be about. Less “Hillary Clinton carried her own bags and flew coach today” and more “Christie makes real proposal to overhaul SS.”
Larry Sabato came up with an updated set of rankings last week. Here it is:
First tier (leading contenders): Jeb, Walker, Rubio.
Second tier (outsiders): Paul, Cruz, Huckabee, Carson, Santorum.
Third tier (governor alternatives): Christie, Kasich, Perry, Jindal.
Fourth tier (gadflies and golden oldies): Graham, Fiorina, Pataki, Gilmore, Ehrlich, Bolton, Peter King.
My main comments:
-
I think a lot of MSM commentators are overrating Rubio. Including Sabato.
-
His second and third tiers are groupings that aren’t really gauging their prospects, so they’re kinda stupid. Any set of tiers that puts Carson (who has no chance of winning the nomination) above Rick Perry (who probably won’t, but could) is misguided.
My alternative list, updated from earlier in the thread:
-
The frontrunners: Scott Walker, Jeb Bush.
-
The contenders: Rand Paul, Ted Cruz.
-
Could become a contender if he could just get noticed again: *Rick Perry, *Marco Rubio.
-
Would have a problem getting people to care, even if they could get noticed (aka the T-Paw Brigade): John Kasich,
-
Are getting noticed, but are still toast: Chris Christie, Lindsey Graham, Ben Carson, Bobby Jindal, Rick Santorum, and Mike Huckabee.
-
Running? Who in the damn galaxy ain’t? Carly Fiorina, Peter King, John Bolton, Bob Ehrlich, George Pataki, Jim Gilmore.
-
Apparently these guys ain’t: Mike Pence, Rick Snyder.
Names in italics have been downgraded from my previous list. I’ve moved Perry, Santorum, and Huckabee down from the #2 group, and Pence and Snyder from #4.
I just don’t see either Santorum or Huckabee either (a) catching fire, or (b) becoming the guy that GOP voters settle on after rejecting everyone else.
I think Rick Perry still has a shot at the (b) option: if the primary voters sour on Walker, never warm to Jeb, and decide Cruz is too much of a bomb-thrower and Paul is too much of a clown, I could see Rick Perry being the 2016 GOP’s answer to John Kerry on the Dem side in 2004, the guy that’s alright in a sort of a limited way for an off-cycle. He’s still a longshot, but it could happen.
The problem with this - as I pointed out in the post you quote - is that a lot of folks (who are actually pretty identifiable as a group, btw) aren’t living longer.
Let’s see: 66 is where we are now, and we’ll get to 67 about the same time as the UK does. So the only part of the UK numbers that are an argument for Christie’s proposed increase is that they’ll increase the retirement age to 68 in 30 years.
Meanwhile, the fact that the French will up their retirement age to 62 - Mon Dieu! They’re increasing their retirement age to a number that’s still well below our current age. So what?
Here’s the deal: the U.S. as a nation could easily afford to pay full Soc.Sec. benefits at 65. The problem is that the top 0.1% is sucking up all the wealth.
I await the day when ‘ballsy’ means standing up to our economic elites, rather than making life worse for ordinary citizens. But I’m not holding my breath.
I thought you were running a significant deficit?
Yes. And this considers the sentence after the one you quoted how?
Both are ballsy in the sense of running a political risk – but the first is, in that sense, far more ballsier.
Huckabee to announce tonight. That is, to announce his decision to run or not to run – ain’t sayin’ which yet.
Oh, come on. How can you deny that was a ballsy move?
I saw Liz Warren on TDS last night. I disagree with just about everything she says. But I’ve got to admit that she’s ballsy. She doesn’t hesitate to tell you exactly where she stands and propose serious changes.
Why can’t you do the same for Christie’s proposal. Sure, disagree with it all you want. But to deny that it’s a bold stand? That’s just ignoring reality.
By the way, you’re list of rankings in post 1233? It’s solid. Good analysis.