Confronting a Republican Party that is divided on matters of war, the Texas governor is pretending to agree with everyone
Conor Friedersdorf Aug 30 2011, 8:30 AM ET
In the Republican Party, there are deep disagreements about foreign policy, and they're ultimately going to play a role in the GOP primary. The contrasting approaches at issue are perhaps best understood by comparing some recent statements offered on the campaign trail. Let's take a look.
Unilateralism or Multilateralism
GOP Candidate A: "It's not our interest to go it alone. We respect our allies and we must always seek to engage them in military missions"
GOP Candidate B: "We must be willing to act when it is time to act. We cannot concede the moral authority of our nation to multilateral debating societies, and when our interests are threatened American soldiers should be led by American commanders."
Interventionism or Restraint
GOP Candidate A: "I do not believe that America should fall subject to a foreign policy of military adventurism. We should only risk shedding American blood and spending American treasure when our vital interests are threatened."
GOP Candidate B: "As the 10th anniversary of the attacks of 911 approach, we must renew our commitment to taking the fight to the enemy wherever they are before they strike at home. We should always look to build coalitions among the nations to protect the mutual interests of freedom loving people."
Qualifications to be Commander in Chief
Candidate A: "I think the military men and women respect the commander in chief regardless of who it is."
Candidate B: "Go ask your veterans if they'd rather see somebody who's never served as the commander in chief. I think they really like to see a person who's worn the uniform in that office and, you know, I think that's just a true statement and I wouldn't back up off of it an inch."
Who are Candidates A and B? Forgive me for the misdirection, but the fact is that they're both Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who said all of the above Monday in the same foreign policy speech delivered to the Veterans of Foreign Wars. As Dan Foster put it at National Review, "the debate on the Right at the moment is, very roughly speaking, between the Bush Doctrine and good ol' fashioned realism, and Perry certainly sounds like he's trying to help himself to both."
Sort of like the way Perry wants to claim that it's great that people can vote with their feet to live in jurisdictions that reflect their values on issues like gay marriage and abortion, but it's also important that the federal government pass constitutional amendments on abortion and gay marriage.
Paleo-cons and neo-cons, libertarians and the religious right -- it's easy to see why so many on the right prefer Perry to Mitt Romney. The Texas governor may disingenuously pander just as often as his Massachusetts opponent, but he does it with so much more cowboy swagger and charisma!
TWEAK TWEAK .. for one raise the cap .. so easy, that TWEAK would be so little the ones paying more would not miss it. Damn, the don't help Obama in any way. It's crippling.
Benjy Sarlin & Evan McMorris-Santoro September 9, 2011, 6:30 AM
Social Security is the latest battlefield for the GOP primary, with Mitt Romney launching a new campaign to paint Rick Perry as extreme and out of touch with voters over his myriad criticisms of the program.
“Social Security is a good thing. We need Social Security,” Romney said in an interview with Sean Hannity .. http://thepage.time.com/2011/09/08/romney-hits-perry-again-on-soc-sec/#ixzz1XOm5CvGf .. on Thursday. “If we nominate someone who the Democrats could correctly characterize as being opposed to Social Security, we would be obliterated.”
Given the Tea Party’s zeal for budget cuts, it might be easy to assume that Romney’s strategy is unworkable in a primary. But it’s possible Romney is onto something and Perry has gone too far on a limb even for the GOP base in his attacks on the program.
On a basic level, Perry’s claims that Social Security is in crisis and needs to be changed, perhaps by raising the retirement age, are certainly not that extreme for mainstream GOP officials, despite Romney’s attempts to paint them that way. But Perry takes the critique to a whole new level, claiming that the whole concept of Social Security is a fraud and a lie. Despite efforts by his campaign to soften Perry’s language, Perry has clearly signaled he wants to get rid of Social Security — and that’s what Romney has seized on.
On MSNBC Thursday, RNC chair Reince Priebus dismissed talk that attacking Social Security would leave the Republican nominee weaker against Obama next year.
“I’m going to let all the pundits and the smart people out there voice their opinions,” Priebus told Chuck Todd when asked about Karl Rove’s view that Perry’s Social Security attacks are “toxic” .. http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/09/karl-rove-calls-rick-perry-toxic-on-social-security.php .. to a Republican nominee. “But what I do think is on safe ground in this country is having a serious, adult conversation about what we’re going to do to finance Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.”
Speaking to reporters at a Christian Science Monitor-sponsored breakfast Wednesday, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor also signed on ..
.. with the concept of making changes to the nation’s entitlement system in the next cycle.
“I think the point that [Perry] is trying to make is, the numbers don’t lie and the math doesn’t add up,” Cantor said. “We’ve got to do something to address it. I agree that we need to focus on the idea that people are expected the government to live up to its promises, and right now the numbers do not lie.”
Nonetheless, Cantor was careful to downplay the “Ponzi scheme” and “monstrous lie” talk, noting that Social Security’s problems “can be addressed probably more straightforwardly than the health care system.” And he’s right: despite Perry’s rhetoric, all it takes is a few relatively minor fixes to make the math on Social Security benefits work indefinitely. .. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-boring-truth-about-social-security/2011/09/08/gIQAp9oaCK_blog.html .. [article below] ..
And that’s just the simple tweaks to Social Security’s finances. Pivoting off Perry, his rival candidate Herman Cain, said in Thursday’s debate that the US should follow Chile’s model and privatize the program so retirees could put their money into the market in exchange for giving up the current defined benefits system. A similar plan by President Bush in 2005 went down in flames and brought his poll numbers along for the ride.
Polling by the AARP in 2010 showed voters are still overwhelmingly repelled even by that kind of privatization plan. Some 79% of respondents said they preferred providing guaranteed benefits for Social Security versus only 19% who want to invest in private accounts with higher risks and rewards. And despite advocates’ insistence that younger voters get what they’re talking about, opposition was strong in the survey across all ages.
As for whether Social Security is constitutional or should be delegated to the states, two ideas Perry explored in his book Fed Up!, the notion is so little discussed in either party that there doesn’t seem to be any decent polling.
In Perry’s defense, polls have not always been the best judge of how the public will vote. In Florida — a big state for Social Security — voters overwhelmingly picked the Social Security-criticizing Marco Rubio .. http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/09/rick-perry-and-social-security-a-florida-debacle-maybe-not.php .. for Senate over either the Republican-leaning independent Charlie Crist or the Democratic nominee, both of which tried to make Rubio’s stance on entitlements a big issue.
Why does Social Security show a shortfall? As Stephen C. Goss, the system’s chief actuary, has written, Social Security projects an imbalance “because birth rates dropped from three to two children per woman.” That means there are relatively fewer young people paying for the old people. “Importantly,” Goss continues, “this shortfall is basically stable after 2035.” In other words, we only have to fix Social Security once. After we reform it to take account of modern demographics, the system is set for the foreseeable future.
And that’s...it. That’s what’s needed to fix Social Security. All this talk about it being a “monstrous lie” or “a Ponzi scheme” or “broken” is meant to create a crisis to clear the way for radical changes in Social Security. But if folks want to make radical changes to Social Security, they should just make the argument for their proposed fixes. And good luck to them. But in reality, what’s going to happen is that sometime in the next decade or so, Republicans and Democrats are going to compromise on a package that adjusts Social Security by about 0.7 percent of GDP over the next 75 years. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-boring-truth-about-social-security/2011/09/08/gIQAp9oaCK_blog.html
See also .. It absolutely amazes me that voters have not risen up and protested against DC Repubs for their concerted effort for 2.5 years to crater the U.S. economy. Instead, know-nothing teabaggers, supported by big $$$ from corps, handcuffed Obama...When the middle class finally wakes up, it will be too late!
Another sign the know-nothings are in charge was Perry feeling free to repeat his screwball comment last night that "SS is a Ponzi scheme" while at the same time offering NO plan on how to save it!...Good God, when does this stupidity end!! http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=66936404 .. good one, Peg ..
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
