Ron is Wrong

"Russ Feingold and politicians from both parties raided the Social Security Trust Fund of trillions and left seniors an IOU. They spent the money. It's gone."
Ron Johnson, Republican nominee for US Senator from Wisconsin (1)

Annual revenues from Social Security taxes now exceed the annual payout to seniors and disabled people, and the surplus is invested in special US treasury bonds. These bonds, like US savings bonds and treasury bills sold to the public, are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government. Since this government started borrowing money during the Revolutionary War, the US has never defaulted on a debt. That is why American treasury securities are considered the "gold standard" of a safe investment by investors and foreign governments all over the world. China is not our best friend in the world today, but it holds more US debt than anyone else.

So is the money gone, as Ron Johnson says? Only if the federal government defaults on the treasury bonds, which is unlikely, since the treasury can simply print more US currency whenever needed. (2)

What would Johnson do with the surplus Social Security revenue? Keep it in a vault in Fort Knox or similar storage facility? That way it would not be spent, but it would not provide any interest either, so less money would be available to pay future benefits. Invest it in bank accounts, stocks or corporate bonds? That would be more risky than using treasury bonds!

The Republican nominee is also willing to consider voluntary partial privitization of Social Security. (1) The trouble is that too many people would make bad investments with their retirement money, and would be destitute in old age. The public pressure to bail them out would be irresistible, so the taxpayers would probably be stuck with the cost of their benefits.

Johnson's campaign commercials say he is for less government, and no wonder. As a straight, white, male Christian, he never encountered discrimination, so government civil rights laws did him no good. As a business owner, he did not need the Wagner Act to protect his right to join a union. As a multi-millionaire (at least before he bought all those TV ads), he has no need for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Badgercare, food stamps, or even public schools. For wealthy people like Ron Johnson, the federal government means regulation and income taxes, so the less the better.

Wisconsin's other senator, Herb Kohl, is vastly richer than Ron Johnson, so he certainly has no need for all those government benefits. But the difference is that Kohl cares about the well-being of those much less fortunate, so he wants government to be big enough to help them.

Ron Johnson is good at running a plastics company (3), and I hope that he continues to do that well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Sept. 16, 2010, page 5B (continuation of page 1B story).

(2) The benefits would then be paid in ruinously inflated dollars, but they would be paid.

(3) Johnson's firm Pacur started operations after a man in The Graduate urged Dustin Hoffman to pursue "plastics." Coincidence? Maybe.

Candid Candidates

Candidates for Congress in the coming election are speaking their minds in a more candid way than has been common for politicians. While politicians have been criticized for concealing their true feelings behind bland boilerplate, here are some Republicans who let us know the truth about their gut-feelings, and it is not always pretty:

1. Ron Johnson, endorsed by the Wisconsin Republican Party for US Senator (1)
Regarding the USAPATRIOT Act, Johnson told the Rock River Patriots that "I certainly share the concerns on civil liberties now that you have Barack Obama in power....I wasn't overly concerned with George Bush in power." (2)
Even if you believe that Republican presidents can be safely entrusted with intrusive power over individual Americans, but Democratic presidents cannot, when you vote to increase presidential powers, you do so for all future presidents, unless and until the law is repealed or amended. Johnson admitted to the group that he is not a scholar of the Constitution. Fortunately, incumbent Senator Russ Feingold (Harvard Law, 1979) is one, and voted against the overly-intrusive bill.

2. Sharron Angle, Republican nominee for US Senator from Nevada
Former Nevada State Rep. Angle is a big fan of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, which guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. Not only does this provision of the Bill of Rights protect the rights of Americans to use guns for hunting and self-defense, but she considers it the ultimate shield against oppressive government, like the present federal government.
She told radio interviewer Bill Manders in January of this year that "I'm hoping that we're not getting to Second Amendment remedies. I hope the vote will be the cure for Harry Reid problems." In case you think she was kidding or misspoke, Angle told the Reno Gazette in May that "They're afraid they'll have to fight for their liberty in more Second Amendment ways....If we don't win at the ballot box, what will be the next step?" (3)
It appears that Sharron Angle will not accept defeat graciously, as I have several times. Like the Weathermen, Malcolm X, Rap Brown, Stokely Carmichael and many others, Angle is warning that if her faction cannot achieve its political agenda at the ballot box, they will turn to violence. In other words, "The Fire Next Time." Like her predecessors on the Left, she is personally opposed to violence (although she does carry a gun, legally), but will be unable to prevent others on her side from resorting to it. Perhaps her slogan should be "Vote Republican, or else!"

3. Rand Paul, Republican nominee for US Senator from Kentucky
Shortly after winning the GOP nomination for senator, Dr Paul told TV interviewer Rachel Maddow that he believes that business owners should not be coerced by the federal government into serving people (i.e. minorities) they do not want to serve. This libertarian position is precisely that taken by US Senator Barry Goldwater (R, Arizona) when he voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (4) After this quote "hit the fan", Paul modified his remark by asserting he was against racial discrimination and does not advocate repealing the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Given his staunch libertarian stance, I believe that his first statement represented his real feelings on the matter, and that he backpedalled to conform to the contemporary Republican consensus. Sure, he does not advocate repealing what has been settled law for 46 years, but if a bill were introduced today that would limit the rights of business owners to discriminate against some group, I would bet that he would be against it.
Although his biological father is US Rep. Ron Paul (R, Texas), he is an ideological son of Barry Goldwater.

In this highly politicized year, no rumor is too outrageous or absurd to be sent around the Internet at the speed of light. No lie is too vicious to tell. But at least these politicians have told us openly where their hearts are, and if they win, their constituents will get exactly what they bargained for.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) He is opposed in the September primary by Dave Westlake of Watertown. Johnson's party endorsement and his vast wealth (over $10 million) are expected to garner the official nomination. Westlake is opposed to the Patriot Act.

(2) Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, June 17, 2010, page 5B.

(3) Las Vegas Sun, June 17, 2010.

(4) Goldwater was the Republican nominee for President in 1964, and lost to incumbent Lyndon B Johnson. His opposition to the Civil Rights Act spurred many southern white Democrats (such as Senator Strom Thurmond) switched to the GOP. Of the six states carried by Goldwater, only Arizona and Louisiana had ever previously voted Republican in presidential elections. Since then, most of the electoral votes of southern states have gone to the Republican nominee.