Rand Paul (R-KY) is testing the limits of what a candidate can advocate while still being elected. Yesterday on “Fox News Sunday”, Paul admitted that he would eventually have to raise the retirement age for Social Security, and reduce benefits for Medicare in order to pay for the Bush tax cuts (video to the left). While Paul was very vague about what kind of cuts he would make, the admission by itself is important. In previous elections, Social Security and Medicare have been considered the “third rail” of politics. Politicians who merely talked about making cuts to the popular programs many times found themselves “dead” on election day.
Paul conceded he would have to cut Social Security and Medicare in order to pay for an extension of the Bush tax cuts. As Chris Wallace noted, a full extension of the Bush tax cuts, which Paul advocates for, would reduce the federal revenues by about $4 trillion over the next ten years. The government would either need to add that $4 trillion to national debt, or make some serious cuts to entitlement programs to offset the loss revenue. In his initial answer Paul tries to simply say he will “reduce spending”, but to his credit host Chris Wallace challenges him, saying that government would need to cut entitlement programs to reduce spending that much. It is at this time that Paul agrees he would need to raise the retirement age and cut Medicare benefits as well. Paul’s opponent, Jack Conway, says he would reduce Medicare fraud and close tax loopholes to help pay for the Bush tax cuts. In fairness to Paul, Conway’s cuts would also not completely offset the costs of the extending the tax cuts.
Conway made a courageous move in agreeing to debate Paul on the Republican-friendly Fox News network. Polls (seen on the left) have shown Conway consistently trailing Paul by a small margin. In the past Paul has made a number of mistakes when interviewing before the national media. It is possible that Conway agreed to the debate hoping to get Paul to make one more embarrassing statement on camera. It has yet to be seen whether Paul’s statements on Medicare and Social Security will hurt him with Kentucky voters this November.
Comments
SS and Medicare MUST be dealt with.
$107,000,000,000,000 in unfunded liabilities cannot be sustained.
Those in their younger years will HAVE to face higher premiums and lower benefits and they should also be able to invest some of their SS payments into private accounts.
remember when people's 401(K) turned into 201(K)?
you want the same thing to happen to their social security?
I remember because I have one and it has come back to where it was 3 years ago.
I said invest SOME into a private account which can be bonds and other vehicles that protect the principle.
"I remember because I have one and it has come back to where it was 3 years ago."
Did you say "Thank You President Obama"?
Obama has nothing to do with it.
What utter nonsense. Medicare and Social Security don't come from INCOME tax, there is a special tax for that. Changes in medicare and SS eligibility/structure for younger people would be to keep THOSE programs solvent, totally apart from general revenue.
You know social security worked when you had 40 workers for every one person collecting. Fast forward to today and you have about 4 workers for every person on SS. You do not have to be a math whiz to see why it doesn't work and now you damn Paul because he is telling you what scumbag democrats won't; it is nothing more than a ponzi scheme.
I wonder if you have any parents or relatives on Social Security right now. What do you think would happen to them if they were cut off from it, right now?
An honest politician (Paul) and a real Journalist (Wallace) getting answers. Only on Fox.
you mean, in spite of fox
btw: a really honest politician isn't afraid to voice his or her beiliefs and commitments in the opposition's forum...when will your "honest" politician be answering questions on non-conseravtive channels? an honest politician wouldn't hide from REAL interviewers.
We pay SS to support our parents - It is not an investment exactly. We would like to think that it will still be there when we retire but we pay to support people who are already receiving. That is how it is designed.
Using that logic that it is not an investment in OUR future then the cap of earnings on SS taxes could be removed and presto - you have a terrific infusion of cash into the system and just maybe we wouldn't have to make so many cuts and just maybe there would be something left when we actually did retire.
Furthermore all of the folks in Washington that are drawing full SS benefits and their paychecks at the same time - this has got to stop - lg
logic:
let us say that social security is the ponzi scheme that conservatives describe it to be...a ponzi scheme is a pyramid that takes from one level and pays off on the next...everything is working up until the last level...they take it in the shorts...Rand Paul is telling young voters that they should vote for him and become that last level in the pyramid...basically, if you vote for Rand Paul, you voted to take it in the shorts..you voted to be the first level that doesn't get paid off...even if you privatize at your generation, you still have to pay taxes to pay off the level before yours...so, you will be the generation paying into your own privatized social security AND paying off that last level at the same time....they won't be taking out SS from your check, but they will be taking out extra tax to pay off that last level...voting for Rand Paul and Sharron Angle sounds GREAT, doesn't it?
Slashing the Social Security of millions of elderly and disabled people, just so the filthy rich can get filthier and richer with generous tax breaks.
How do Rand Paul sleep at night?
how can rand paul sleep at night ? Its very easy to do when you are a high paid doctor and don't mind hideing your real plan . What other things did he hide just to get your vote. The little old lady who was in one of his adds said " i know dr paul and he's my doctor and i trust him to do whats best for me" Guess what sweetey you have been screwed unless you were one of the poor people who had to have a tax cut so bad because you just couldn't make it on your $250,000.00 income . WHAT IS RAND PAUL. JUST A LITTLE SAD JOKE. I WON'T HONOR HIM BY CALLING HIM SENATOR PAUL
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!