Dr. Williams has it right:
Politicians who are principled enough to point out the fraud of Social Security, referring to it as a lie and Ponzi scheme, are under siege. Acknowledgment of Social Security’s problems is not the same as calling for the abandonment of its recipients. Instead, it’s a call to take actions now, while there’s time to avert a disaster
And so does Governor Perry:
”Now, if you say Social Security is a failure, as I have just done, you will inherit the wind of political scorn. Seniors might think you want to cut the benefits they have paid for. Politicians will seek to take advantage, stirring up fear about benefits that will be lost if you elect another “heartless Republican.” I get it. That’s why only retired senators chair entitlement commissions. “
”We are told that no politician has the courage to raise these issues, even if avoiding them puts us on the fast track to financial ruin. But by remaining quiet, politicians are really saying they think the American people won’t understand it if we share the grim details of our financial future, and that voters will simply kill – or vote against – the messenger in order to continue to receive an underfunded benefit that robbed them of the tens of thousands of dollars they should have made. “
”Is that how we should respect our fellow citizens? By underestimating their intelligence, their desire to retire with greater stability, or their commitment to the next generation? Programs and attitudes like this show just how much the New Deal tossed away. A new culture of do-something-it is now trumps any constitutional restraint and feeds the political beast in Washington, and each generation of national politicians wants to expand government, failing to truly address the problems created by the previous generation’s expansion of government. “
Star Parker’s column this week (here on Townhall.com) asks great questions, which would be hard to answer in 60 seconds or less. As she notes, the debates are “Maximum style, minimum substance. Focus on sizzle, forget about the steak.”
I’m afraid that the debates are not designed to let us get to know the views of the candidates or to allow discussion of the issues, much less to point out the true differences between them.
The purpose of the debates for the media is to get ratings and fodder for the next few news cycles, when the media descends on every gaffe or interpersonal spat as though they were a pack of wild animals on a carcass. If they can embarrass one of the candidates (or cause him to embarrass himself), so much the better for the hyenas to feast on.
Puts a different spin on the idea of the “flavor of the week, doesn’t it?”