ShareThis Page
Ignoring hard truths on Social Security |

Ignoring hard truths on Social Security

| Friday, February 11, 2011 12:00 a.m

Attempting to draw a line in the sand over the future of Social Security, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid stuck his head in it.

“Simply say, (Social Security is) off the table,” says Mr. Reid in a video from the liberal Progressive Change Campaign Committee. Why, Reid insists it’s “the most successful social program in the history of the world.”

Except this “success” story will hemorrhage $600 billion in deficits over the next decade, based on the latest projections. This year alone Social Security will collect $45 billion less than what it pays out in benefits, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Add the one-year cut in payroll taxes, and that figure swells to $130 billion. But have no fear: Congress promises to make up the difference. From what?

Reid and his fellow Democrat sandbaggers cannot stem trillion-dollar federal deficits by ignoring government’s budget-busting entitlements. Disingenuous attempts to do so are akin to “a sparrow belch in the midst of a typhoon,” says former Sen. Alan Simpson, the Republican co-chairman of a presidential deficit-reduction commission.

The time’s come for a show of some guts on difficult decisions that must be made. Instead, Reid plunges his head into the sand, providing America a most unflattering view.

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.