Goyle’s social security protection pledge is a tax increase pledge


Raj Goyle, candidate for Congress, has pledged to protect social security. He doesn’t mention the tax increase that will be required to fulfill this pledge.

Goyle’s opponents in the campaign for United States Congress from the fourth district of Kansas are Reform party candidate Susan Ducey, Libertarian David Moffett, and Republican Mike Pompeo.

In his pledge, Goyle promises to “work for real solutions that strengthen Social Security for the long term.” Specifically, he pledges to oppose all efforts at privatization and raising the retirement age to 70.

The problem is that after ruling out reforms like these, there’s not much left to do except to raise taxes. Evidence of this can be found in today’s Wichita Eagle, which carries an editorial from the Los Angeles Times. Titled Ignore fearmongering on Social Security, it mostly looks back at opposition to the formation of the Social Security system 75 years ago.

But the article recognizes that the system needs “minor adjustments” to remain solvent. The authors write: “Economists say that raising the income ceiling on the payroll tax, applying the Social Security tax to nonwage income or adding a modest increase to the payroll tax could add decades to the health of the Social Security trust fund.”

Each of these policy changes is a tax increase. The article lists no other solutions than these.

These recommendations are not Goyle’s. He hasn’t said what he would do to place the system on a sound financial footing.

But there’s not much that we can do except raise taxes if we want to keep the current system.

We need to do something quickly. Social Security will pay out more in benefits this year than it receives in contributions from payroll taxes. It had been thought that this milestone would not be reached until 2017 or later.

There are those who cite the Social Security trust fund and its large balance of over $2 trillion as evidence that the system is doing well. But as Thomas Sowell explains, the trust fund is merely an illusion. The money in the fund has already been spent by government agencies. The only way they can pay back the fund is through tax revenues.

It’s not as though Republicans are confronting the problem head-on. One of the few officeholders willing to do so is Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan, who is ranking member of the House Budget Committee. His Roadmap for America’s future is a plan that recognizes the seriousness of the current situation, not only with Social Security, but in other areas of the federal budget.

His recommendations, specific as they are, cause consternation among some Republicans who would rather talk about problems in general terms rather than specifics. A recent Washington Post profile of Ryan referred to “… many Republican colleagues, who, even as they praise Ryan for his doggedness, privately consider the Roadmap a path to electoral disaster. Unlike most politicians of either party, he doesn’t speak generically about reducing spending, but he does acknowledge the very real cuts in popular programs that will be required to bring down the debt.”

Also: “House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) has alternately praised Ryan and emphasized that his ideas are not those of the party.”

The fact that frank talk about the budget and government spending might be an electoral disaster is a bad sign for America.


8 responses to “Goyle’s social security protection pledge is a tax increase pledge”

  1. sue c.

    Social Security would be totally solvent if the dolts in DC hadn’t decided it was OK to raid the money to pay for other pet projects and entitlements. Seniors have a reason to be mad.

    The first step would be to LOCK the box!

    Unfortunately the politicians like Goyle just give it lip service, and do not want to actually do anything that might help.

    Raising taxes would not help taxpayers, but it would give the DC elite more money to spend on their projects. Just what we don’t need, more Taxes! Ugh.

  2. Wendy

    A retirement program run by the government? Why?

    What’s government’s record on running programs?

    Is the record of privately-run annuity programs better than the record of government on Social Security or Medicare?

    If your financial planner handled your money in the manner the government does, would you let THEM keep control over it?

  3. liberty4all

    A good article in WSJ today about the possible fate of Social Security. Looks like the Democrat-controlled House in cahoots with the White House may be cutting benefits. Goyle will surely be a “yes” vote for that as a subject to Queen Pelosi. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704476104575439792287255372.html?mod=WSJ_hps_MIDDLESixthNews

  4. Dismal Scientist

    Privatize S.S. as soon as possible. Let those young enough to forgo anything already paid into this Ponzi scheme and opt out for good. We need to take care of those poor fools who relied on S.S. as their only retirement funds. I am 44 and know that I will NEVER see anything I have paid into the system because it will be BANKRUPT along with the Federal Government before I retire at 65…no…67…no…70?

  5. Toldyaso

    I’m 56 and have been planning on retiring at 62, if they raise the age their will be many gray hairs marching (or doing other things) in D.C. I heard an uncle say what others are saying…”it wont be there” for me stuff…it in fact was there for him, but he only drew it for 10 months before he died. Thats why people that have family history of dying at 62 should be able to fulfill their plan. My Doctor is retiring next month at 53 years. Hope he can get health insurance.

  6. ictator

    Adding another Democrat to congress to “save” social security is like using a bomb for urban renewal.

    Goyle needs to answer his critics like Paul Rosell who have raised a number of serious and disturbing questions about his candidacy. Rosell’s recent eagle letter raised a number of important questions that Rajeev Goyle needs to answer.

  7. Mike Shaw

    Goyle reminds me of another candidate for public office that promised Hope and Change but would not give specifics. With his previous choice of working for the ACLU, for the Center for American Progress funded by Herbert and Marion Sandler, he is not fit to be dog catcher.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.