Steve Rodich – 3/29/05

This page was last updated on March 29, 2005.

It’s Santorum’s turn to lose; Steve Rodich; Beaver County Times; March 29, 2005.

Mr. Rodich appears to have a thing for Sen. Santorum. The last Rodich letter I critiqued was also critical of Mr. Santorum.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.

“In response to U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum’s March 11 letter ‘Lifting cap is no solution,’ I find his comments to be disingenuous, to say the least.

“He stated ‘eliminating the current $90,000 cap on Social Security taxes by itself will not improve the overall system’s sustainability, would be an enormous tax increase and will not make the system solvent for future generations.’

“This comes from a man who is conducting meetings all over the state and touting the president’s personal account plan, which will divert much-needed funds from the trust fund and cost an estimated $2 trillion.”

[RWC] When will folks like Mr. Rodich stop repeating the lie that a Socialist Security “trust fund” exists? There is no trust fund and there never was; Democrats – led by FDR – designed Socialist Security to be a “pay as you go” system. By law, all annual SS tax receipts that exceed the amount of benefits paid must be turned over to the general fund in return for Treasury bonds. All of the SS tax dollars previously turned over to the Treasury were spent long ago and current “surplus” SS tax dollars continue to be fully consumed each year. For all practical purposes, these bonds are no more than “IOUs.” Because there are no real dollars behind the IOUs – because we already spent the dollars, repaying the IOUs will require tax dollars, either from other government programs or from increased taxes.

Mr. Rodich apparently wants us to believe there will be no increased cost if we don’t do personal accounts. That’s not true. Why do socialists fear personal accounts so much?

“How can we trust him and the administration? They are the same ones who shoved the Medicare prescription plan down the throats of the American public and said it would cost approximately $400 billion. That figure is now $800 billion and climbing.”

[RWC] Mr. Rodich needs to check his history. The nonpartisan – according to John Kerry – Congressional Budget Office made the $400 billion (10 years) estimate in 2003, though the White House didn’t dispute it at the time. Later House and Senate estimates put the cost at about $430 billion. The current estimate is about $720 billion, not $800 billion.

How did we get from $430 billion to $720 billion? When the bill was being worked on in 2003, it had an estimate for the following 10 years (2004 – 2013). Because the plan would not go into effect for two years, the first two years (2004 & 2005) had no costs for the plan. This was no secret; everyone knew it. Skip ahead two years to 2005. This 10-year estimate now includes 10 full years (2006 – 2015) of the drug plan. That accounts for the most of the “jump” from $430 billion to $720 billion. The remainder is getting a better handle on the figures. We should have learned a long time ago that estimated costs for proposed government programs are always too low.

“Even many of the Republicans who were duped into supporting the administration are now saying the plan is too costly and must be revisited. Bush, however, says he will thwart any attempt to do so.”

[RWC] I ignore any Democrats who bitch about the Medicare prescription drug plan. They invariably complain about the cost, yet they are the ones who keep pushing for universal taxpayer-funded healthcare. It’s obvious hypocrisy and partisanship. It’s my opinion Mr. Rodich would be doing cartwheels if Democrats had proposed and enacted exactly the same plan.

In Congress, the same Democrats who cry crocodile tears about the cost also complain the plan didn’t go far enough! Indeed, the Democrat proposal in 2003 was double the cost of President Bush’s proposal.

For the record, I opposed the prescription drug plan before it was passed and I still do. Government has no Constitutional responsibility to run a healthcare insurance business.

“Santorum wrote, ‘I am hopeful that Congress will work together for a bipartisan solution rather than passing Social Security’s troubles on to our children and grandchildren.’

“What a noble statement coming from someone who is considered the most partisan individual in the Congress. I can’t think of a single Democratic issue that Santorum ever supported. His idea of bipartisan is, the Republicans put forth a bill and the Democrats support it. Those that do not are obstructionists and un-American.”

[RWC] Who considers Mr. Santorum to be “the most partisan individual in the Congress,” Mr. Rodich? I suspect the answer is Democrats. I also suspect Mr. Rodich excluded Democrats from consideration for the “honor.” Otherwise, there’s no way Mr. Santorum could compete with the likes of Byrd, Kennedy, et al.

Mr. Rodich should not talk about bipartisanship. It was Sen. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) who stated Democrats wouldn’t even talk about Socialist Security reform until Republicans take personal accounts off the table.

Let’s talk about Mr. Rodich’s claim that he “can’t think of a single Democratic issue that Santorum ever supported.” I know of at least three. The first was the Medicare prescription drug plan. Democrats pushed for it for years; they opposed President Bush’s proposal for purely partisan reasons. The second is the minimum wage. As Democrats, Santorum supports raising the minimum wage. The only difference is the magnitude of the increase. I believe Mr. Santorum was/is wrong on both counts. The third is Socialist Security reform. As noted below, Democrats claimed in 1998 that Socialist Security needed fixing. Mr. Santorum supports fixing Socialist Security.

“It is apparent that Santorum believes his position and unwavering support for Bush and his plans for Social Security are the keys to his re-election bid in 2006.

“Remember it was Bush as a candidate for the House in the ‘70s who campaigned on the theory that Social Security would be broke in the ‘80s.

“If history repeats itself, Bush lost on that issue and hopefully, now it is Santorum’s turn.”

[RWC] For the sake of argument, let’s assume Mr. Rodich was correct when he said Socialist Security was a key point in George W. Bush’s 1978 campaign and Mr. Bush claimed that “Social Security would be broke in the ‘80s.” Mr. Rodich wants us to believe Mr. Bush lost the election because he was wrong about Socialist Security.

Here are a few points Mr. Rodich conveniently failed to mention.

· Socialist Security ran a deficit from 1976 through 1982. In 1983, Socialist Security needed to borrow funds from Medicare.

· Congress increased the combined Socialist Security and Medicare tax rate eight times from 1977 through 1990, from 11.7% to 15.3%. The max taxed earnings cap also increased every year during this period. If Socialist Security was in good shape as Mr. Rodich implies, why did Congress need to keep raising the tax rate? There was one tax rate change after 1990. In 1994, Congress eliminated the max taxed earnings cap for the Medicare tax.

· Democrats in the late 1990s were telling us Socialist Security was in trouble and no action has been taken since then. Were they lying then or are they lying now?

· The Socialist Security Administration and the Congressional Budget Office concur that Socialist Security will begin running deficits in 2018 and the “IOUs” will be exhausted in about 2042. At that time, Socialist Security will be unable to pay its full obligations if we do nothing. In the private sector, that’s called bankruptcy.

Would Socialist Security have gone broke in the 1980s if nothing had been done? I don’t know. However, it’s clear Mr. Bush was correct in 1978 when he said Socialist Security was in trouble and President Bush is correct today when he notes Socialist Security remains in trouble.