Tancredo impressive on economics.

[Ivon Denosovich]

I disagree with Tancredo's stance on the war, but these points give me pause:

As a general rule, I believe the farm economy should be market oriented. This is especially true under the current system, where the subsidies flow not so much to family farms but to very wealthy ‘hobby farmers’ and large agri-business concerns. To preserve our sovereignty however, the Country's domestic food supply should be self-sufficient. Therefore, I would not be opposed in principle to limited agricultural subsidies designed to keep farms afloat, and farming skills current, in case of national emergency.

And it gets better...

A growing chorus of economists and experts argue, and I agree, that the current income tax system is complex and unfair and should be replaced by a flat tax or national sales tax. That's why I co-sponsored the FairTax legislation. Simplifying the process would dramatically reduce the costs of compliance, make American companies more competitive, and put billions back into the economy by encouraging investment.

And, finally, the best part:

There is no question that the system is broken. Projections show that by 2016, the only way to avert its collapse will be deep cuts in benefits, heavy borrowing, or substantial tax hikes.

(Bolding mine.) Tancredo is very, very impressive on economics. He's equally impressive on fighting illegal immigration. He's the sole candidae (including Paul) that I'm aware of who's advocating cutting SS benefits. That takes more courage than most political hacks could ever find within themselves.

If I can't get a Paul ticket (which I still want) Tancredo is my next choice!

 

[TomVols]

Tancredo definitely has good qualities. He is indeed a conservative, more so than Paul, Rudy, and the other psuedo-conservatives, and has a much better pro-life record. I am deeply disappointed that the is leaving the House.

I do believe Thompson has argued for cutting SS benefits as well, btw.

However, I don't think Tancredo's statement should be entirely construed to mean he is a benefit cutter. He (and Huckabee) have argued for people choosing to get out of the system. But he is right. Benefits are going to have to be cut somewhere, somehow.

Here is a fuller statement from his website:

​

​

​

It is important that we acknowledge some of the shortcomings of Social Security, as it currently exists. The current system simply cannot cope with the upcoming demographic changes in our country. The ratio of workers to retirees will drop close to 2-to-1 within a generation. To provide for tomorrow s retirees, we must become a nation of owners and savers. Unfortunately, the existing Social Security program does not save or invest for future generations of seniors. Without action to strengthen Social Security, the only options available to the government beginning in 2016 will be massive tax increases, deep benefit cuts for seniors, borrowing money on an unprecedented scale, massive cuts in other government programs -- and likely all of the above.
Simply ignoring the impending crisis is irresponsible. Younger workers must be empowered to invest a portion of their payroll taxes into private accounts, which will allow us to gradually move away from the current unsustainable defined benefit approach of Social Security to a defined contribution approach -- similar to 401k programs and the Thrift Savings Plan available to federal employees. Until we provide the option of personal accounts to younger workers, we will never be able to afford Americans a personal stake
in their own retirement.​

I believe the deepest cuts should be in other programs, then we can either eliminate it altogether (best choice) or have it funded like a private 401K. But is it the government's place to provide retirement funds for its citizens?

Just a thought.

Anyway, Tancredo is a good candidate. Like Paul, he's a one note banjo, though. His incessant need to tie immigration to every problem (like Paul's incessant clamorings about the so-called "real" reason we provoked 9/11) tend to drown out the better things he has to say (not that Tom doesn't have good points on immigration).

 

[Ivon Denosovich]

TomVols, I would say that isn't the government's role to provide retirement at all. I'd like to see Washington give us a police, military, and court system-- and nothing more.

I googled Tancredo and he gets more impressive on economics. He's fought to require partial repayments from bankruptcy clowns and says he wants to balance the budget. Sounds like a plan to me.

ETA: Here Tancredo stands up to UniHC and advocates tort reform. Again, very impressive. If Tancredo would moderate his views on the PATRIOT Act, the Iraq war, and drug issues he'd be my hands down favorite.

 

[billwald]

Would legal aliens get the govt monthly pay check under te "fair tax?" The citizen children of illegal aliens?

 

[Dagwood]

Any politician who will cut SS benefits will not get elected, thank God!

 

[Ivon Denosovich]

Any politician who will cut SS benefits will not get elected, thank God!

You may be right, but that's worth lamenting in prayer. Everyone concedes that SS is going bankrupt. Here, Jon Corzine (D-NJ) even pauses in compassion long enough to acknowledge, "long-term pressures," on SS. Further, no one is payed the interest necessary on their "investments" to offset the rising cost of living as a Yale University study concluded in 1999:

For example, critics point out that under the Social Security laws as they existed at that time, several thousand employees of Galveston County, Texas were allowed to opt out of the Social Security program in the early 1980s, and have their money placed in a private retirement plan instead. While employees who earned $50,000 per year would have collected $1,302 per month in Social Security benefits, the private plan paid them $6,843 per month. While employees who earned $20,000 per year would have collected $775 per month in Social Security benefits, the private plan paid them $2,740 per month.

(Source here)

Also, as Reason notes, there's a vast disconnect between liberal economics and SS benefits:

Now we have liberal pundits horrified at the notion that President Bush, by proposing progressive indexing of Social Security benefits, would contemplate transforming a universal social insurance program into a de facto welfare program. Progressives decrying welfare?

As the Reason article notes, Bush favors, "Social Security system in the future where benefits for low-income workers will grow faster than benefits for people who are better off." Amazingly, by demanding that filthy rich seniors receive the exact same benefits as the poor, Dems not only oppose a plan for financial solvency in the program, they also oppose their own basic tenant of redistributing wealth.

Case in point: this source notes that GE billionarie, Jack Welch, receives $1,500 a month of SS benefits. Still think it's wrong to cut SS benefits, Dagwood? Or do you disagree with this article: On Not Paying For Warren Buffet's Retirement? It seems to me that Dems would support making benefits overtly supportive of the poor instead of fair.

 

[Roy]

I am a Tancredo fan, but I wish Tom was more articulate. I feel bad for him in the debates because words don't seem to come to him as easily as they do for his opponents. Despite that, his replies are direct and to the point. When asked if we should drill oil off the Florida coast, most of his opponents gave glossy statements about balancing environmental concerns with the needs of the country. Tancredo said that we currently buy oil from people who would like nothing better than to see us all dead, therefore we need to drill oil anywhere where we can find it.

Roy