In response to:

Rand Paul’s “Monstrous” and “Nasty” Budget Got 16 More Votes than Obama’s Budget

David4 Wrote: May 18, 2012 1:33 PM
(Leaving aside that you have spelling problems...) Social Security was advertised "An Insurance Plan" when it was created. It immediately fudged on the concept. The very first recipient collected a few decades worth of benefits, even though she only paid in for a few years. Social insurance, not real insurance. The managers of SS did a serious mismatch of premiums (taxes) to promised benefits. Auditors tell us that SS is seriously underfunded and will go bankrupt. The left tells us that the fix for SS is to lift the earnings cap on taxes (w/o lifting the benefits cap). That tells us that SS has become a progressive welfare entitlement, and is no longer real insurance, if it ever was real insurance.

A few months ago, I wrote some very nice things about a budget plan put together by Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, noting that:

Senator Paul and his colleagues are highlighting the fact that the plan generates a balanced budget in just five years. That’s a good outcome, but it should be a secondary selling point. All the good results in the plan – including the reduction in red ink and the flat tax – are made possible because the overall burden of federal spending is lowered.

Not surprising, one of the columnists at the Washington Post has a different...

Related Tags: Budget
Thursday, May 23 | 01:30 PM ET
Thursday, May 23 | 01:30 PM ET
Thursday, May 23 | 01:30 PM ET
Thursday, May 23 | 01:30 PM ET