Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Paul Jacob :: Townhall.com Columnist
Hillary's middle class tax increase
by Paul Jacob
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will Congress pass Obamacare by the end of the year?

Remember that middle class tax cut Bill Clinton promised us years ago, the one we never got? Well, now Hillary Clinton wants it back. That is, she wants to take back what was never given.

This must be the Clintonian equivalent of getting blood from a turnip.

Shocking, I know, that New York Senator and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton might be considering hiking up our taxes, but look no further than an article headlined "Clinton Rules Out Cuts In Social Security," from a recent issue of the Wall Street Journal.

Speaking before an American Association of Retired Persons convention in Boston, Hillary pledged, if and when she becomes president, to quickly solve Social Security's long-term financial insolvency, now totaling an incredible $84 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

How will she do it? With the daring and courage only she can provide. That is, by not allowing any meaningful reform of Social Security.

"When I'm president," Hillary intoned, "privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything." Sure, in some countries average folks are investing through government retirement programs and growing wealthier, but Americans aren't so smart. We need Congress to spend — er, save and take care of — our retirement money for us.

AARP's shindig also offered Mrs. Clinton the chance to score some points against Illinois Senator Barack Obama. Earlier this year, Obama told AARP that "everything should be on the table" in reforming Social Security. What a rookie mistake. Hillary wasted no time in reassuring the AARP crowd that any cuts in benefits as well as any raising of the retirement age were "off the table" during her administration.

So, what is left on her table? What will President Hillary offer to deal with the coming shortfall for Social Security?

No. Not a lock-box. But good guess, Al.

Yes. A tax increase. A payroll tax increase. An increase that will sock it hard to the middle class. That's a bit odd considering that politicians like Hillary constantly talk about how much they want to help the middle class.

I guess it's true, that old saying, we only hurt the ones we love.

When Journal reporter Jackie Calmes deduced that raising the payroll tax was Mrs. Clinton's only remaining option, she followed up with Clinton spokesman Phil Singer, reporting:

"When it comes to Social Security," [Mrs. Clinton] will stand her ground, Mr. Singer said. "People rely on Social Security." Asked if that would mean an increase in the current payroll tax, he said, "Among other things, yes."

But don't go thinking "yes" means "yes." It doesn't — Hillary's last name is Clinton, remember? After pandering to the powerful AARP, Hillary felt an egalitarian need to pander to average Americans, too. She no doubt senses that Mr. and Mrs. Average do not want to hear that she plans to raise their taxes. So, Hillary's campaign website soon posted this statement in response:

The print edition of today's Wall Street Journal suggests that Hillary Clinton would be open to an increase in the payroll tax for Social Security. That is not correct. Hillary Clinton would not increase payroll taxes for Social Security as President.

Whew! That was close. We almost had a tax increase. Well, I mean if Hillary were to win the presidency — and then do what she said she'd do before she said she wouldn't do it.

But there's just one more thing: How would Mrs. President Clinton actually protect Social Security? Continued...

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Paul Jacob is President of Citizens in Charge. His daily Common Sense commentary appears on the Web, via e-mail, and on radio stations across America.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
The Crystal Ball of SS
If there ever was a crystal ball, its demographics. The children born 67 years ago are all starting to get checks. Those born 50 years ago will start getting them in 17 years, etc. The money is a sort of PONZI scheme in that whatever surplus from those putting into the system has been spent by Lyndon Johnson's transferring of SS into the general fund. (Congress has never met a dollar it couldn't spend).

But SS is a sustainable PONZI scheme If (and that is a really big if) there are enough persons entering the workforce, making enough SS taxable income, to sustain it.

Right about now, the first million and a half victicms of Roe V. Wade would have been in their fories, at the peak of their income levels, paying the max benefit into SS to sustain the scheme. But alas, the most successful families today are not having babies (DINKS) or limiting their "choice" to one or two. The only ones really pumping out the children are the illegal aliens trying to get themselves an anchor baby, and who will NEVER contribute enough into the system to pay either their way or their children's.

hey Inkling: We already have them
"A key element to solving the Social Security crisis will be TERM LIMITS in Congress."


We HAVE term limits, they are called elections. Two years for every representative, 4 years for every Pres/VP, and 6 years for every Senator. That fact that we keep electing them is the problem. Often, the fix is in preventing a viable candidate from running against them, either in a primary or open election.

Maybe we need to change the law to allow us to vote for w replacement. In a primary when running unopposed, or by a staw candidate, we should be allowed to chose "No confindence in any of the slated candidates". If that choice is the majority vote, all candidates on the slate would be removed and a new election held.

The same for open elections. "None of the above" would automatically eliminate the candidates slated including the encumbant. and we start over again.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.