Republican Voters Split on Rick Perry's Statements on Social Security

USA Today, "Poll: Perry's Social Security view concerns some Republicans":

Republican voters are evenly split over whether Texas Gov. Rick Perry's outspoken stance on Social Security makes them more or less likely to support him for the presidential nomination, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds, but they are worried that his views could cost him in the general election.

The survey, taken after the CNN/Tea Party Express debate among Republican contenders Monday, illustrates the complicated politics on the issue that has prompted the sharpest divide between Perry and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, the contenders at the top of national polls.

Perry, the Texas governor, calls Social Security a "Ponzi scheme" for younger workers that needs to be fundamentally revamped for future recipients. One in five Republicans say that position makes them more likely to support him; one in five say it makes them less likely to do so. However, by more than 2-1, 37%-17%, Republicans predict Perry's position will hurt rather than help his chances of being elected president.

Keep reading.

A majority of both Republicans and independents says protecting Social Security, despite its problems, is most important. Also at Gallup, "Perry 'Ponzi Scheme' Remark Doesn't Faze Most Republicans: Solid Majority Believe Social Security Should Be Preserved." (Via Memeorandum.)

But see Charles Krauthammer, "A Ponzi scheme that should be fixed." As usual, Krauthammer's is the best article I've read on this in a long time.

24-Year-Old Cincinnati Man Dies of Toothache After Brilliantly Filling His Pain Medication Prescription Instead of Antibiotics

Folks should probably be clear about something first: A tooth extraction is not an expensive dental procedure. Indeed, as the ABC News report indicates, "a routine tooth extraction" costs about $80.00. And while it's a horribly needless waste of life, it's no one's fault but the man's himself, 24-year-old Kyle Willis, the father of a young girl. Willis decided to ride out the pain. When he was overcome by swelling he checked into the emergency room and the doctors gave him prescriptions for antibiotics and pain medication. Willis, apparently because he was "uninsured," bought the pain killers and blew off the antibiotics. Big mistake. Rudimentary health knowledge says buy the antibiotics and take some (cheap) generic ibuprofen for the pain and inflammation. To make matters worse, Willis had family members in the area. His aunt [...] is married to a successful local musician. Perhaps he could have borrowed a little money from loved ones. That's called individual responsibility. You always take care of your own, and when you need a hand you fall back on loved ones. When all else fails, there's charity. Of course, under our socialist welfare state, the historical culture of personal responsibility and self-sufficiency has been destroyed by the patrimonial socialist handout regime. Big government assumes that people are too stupid and weak to save for a rainy day, or to plan ahead for emergencies. Tucking away a few Jacksons wouldn't have killed this man. His ignorance and lack of discipline did. So dumb is this case that even über-socialist Matthew Yglesias has to begin his essay with a disclaimer, conceding that supreme stupidity is not a rationale for increasing the size and scope of government:

Now, clearly, this man made some sub-optimal choices here he’s not purely a victim of lack of health insurance. At the same time you have right before you a no-longer-living, no-longer-breathing example of the “push the patient to the edge of financial desperation” theory of health care cost controls. It turns out that the quality of a frightened, pain-wracked young man asked to make technical medical decisions under severe financial constraints is not very high. The social cost of 24 year-old fathers dying of eminently treatable tooth infections, by contrast, is gigantic.

Oh, give me a freakin' break! "Technical medical decisions"? Doctors gave Willis all he needed to get better. It's not a "technical medical decision" to choose pain killers over antibiotics --- it's gambling with your life and the future of your child. Oh, and the man was black --- so now I'm going to be attacked as RAAAAACIST for pointing out that stupidity knows no color.



Freakin' progressive "compassion" is killing society's least well prepared for success. And that's what's really sad about this case.



More imbecilic progressive "compassion" at The Reaction: "Reconciling Conservative "Logic" Is Like Pulling Teeth."



UPDATE: Lonely Conservative links: "Walmart Sells $4 Prescriptions." Also, at Scared Monkeys, "Cincinnati Man Dies of Tooth Infection … Liberal MSM Blames No Insurance."

Althouse links. Thanks!



And Dustbury!

Homosexuality Is Not a Civil Right

Well, the gay extremists have Tony Perkins in the crosshairs. Bunch of ASFLs.



Turns out that the Family Research Council issued a press release hammering the Obama White House for promoting childhood homosexuality. I especially like the point about Dan Savage, who is identified as "a homosexual extremist who built a career on hatred of Christians and our values." Word.



And see this from FRC, "Homosexuality Is Not a Civil Right":

Because of our national shame at the historic legacy of racial discrimination against blacks, many people have come to think of “discrimination” as inherently evil. However, the basic meaning of “discriminate” is simply “to make a distinction.” To compare and evaluate candidates based on their education, experience, intelligence, and competence is inherently “discrimination.” The question, therefore, is not whether “discrimination” will take place—it can, it will and it must. The question for public policy is: which forms of “discrimination” are so profoundly offensive to the national conscience that they justify government action that interferes with the rights of employers and other private entities and gives special protections to certain classes of people?



In the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Congress answered that question by including only five categories of protection. As noted above, those categories were: “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” For instance, a banker could deny an applicant a loan because the applicant was not credit-worthy, but not because he or she was Jewish or black. What do these protected categories have in common?



While there is no definitive legal answer, the most logical answer would seem to be that the case for granting legal protection against “discrimination” is strongest when based on a personal characteristic that is:



* Inborn, involuntary, and immutable (like race and color);

* Innocuous (because it does no harm to the employer, to the individual, or to society as a whole); and/or

* In the Constitution.



Is “sexual orientation,” like race and sex, a characteristic that is inborn, involuntary, immutable, innocuous, and in the Constitution? Is it, like religion (which is not inborn, involuntary, immutable, or necessarily innocuous, but is in the Constitution), a characteristic that meets even one of these criteria?



The only truthful answer is no.

RTWT.



PREVIOUSLY: "Gay Marriage is Not a Civil Right."

Ross Douthat, Political Scientist

Douthat draws on political science research at New York Times, "Waiting For a Landslide." And for a second I thought he'd blow it, because "realignment theory," which he discusses, hasn't accurately explained, much less predicted, partisan trends for decades. But Douthat adds this, which is just right:

In reality, the next election may be no more transformative than 2008 turned out to be. The next Republican president may find himself as hemmed in and frustrated as President Obama has become. Meanwhile, America will still have a credit rating to fix, and a deficit to close.

More at that link at top, and Douthat had a great piece a few days ago on the debt deal, "The Liberals’ Dilemma." Note especially:

... American liberalism risks becoming a victim of its own longstanding strategy’s success. Because yesterday’s liberals insisted on making universal programs the costly core of the modern welfare state, on the famous theory that “programs for the poor become poor programs,” today’s liberals find themselves defending those universal (and therefore universally-popular) programs at the expense of every other kind of government spending — including, yes, programs for the poor. It’s a classic example of putting liberal political interests ahead of liberal policy priorities. In the short term, the insistence on ring-fencing Medicare and Social Security has left Democrats defending a system that often just ends up redistributing money from the younger middle class to the older middle class while accepting caps on programs that might do more (both directly and indirectly) to help downscale Americans get ahead. In the long term, by postponing any reckoning with the cost of entitlements, it’s making it more likely that the inevitable crunch will hit the poorest recipients of Medicare and Social Security harder than it should.

Read that whole thing. Basically, progressives will never cut entitlements because gargantuan socialist welfare states form the core of socialist existentialism.



Douthat's coming of his own as a New York Times columnist, by the way. He had cold feet or something after leaving The Atlantic, but he's been more consistent in posting some excellent commentary of late.

America Gets Downgraded

At Wall Street Journal, "A spend and tax policy mix always leads to economic decline":

... is there anything that S&P said on Friday that everyone else doesn't already know? S&P essentially declared that on present trend the U.S. debt burden is unsustainable, and that the American political system seems unable to reverse that trend.

This is not news.

In that context, the Obama Administration's attempt to discredit S&P only makes the U.S. look worse—like the Europeans who also want to blame the raters for noticing the obvious. Treasury officials and chief White House economic adviser Gene Sperling denounced S&P for relying on a Congressional Budget Office scenario that overestimated the U.S. discretionary spending baseline by $300 billion through 2015 and $2 trillion through 2021.

But even adjusting for that $2 trillion would only reduce U.S. publicly held debt to 85% or so of GDP—still dangerously high. And that assumes that recently agreed upon spending caps are sustained over a decade, something which rarely happens.

We think the larger problem with S&P, Moody's and Fitch is that they make no distinction over how a nation balances its books—whether through tax increases or spending reductions. Like the International Monetary Fund, the raters care only about balance.

This takes too little account of the need for faster economic growth, which is the only real path out of a debt crisis. Britain's government has earned rater approval for its fiscal consolidation, but its increases in VAT and income tax rates are hurting its tepid recovery. Letting the credit raters dictate tax increases is the road to an austerity trap.

The real reason for White House fury at S&P is that it realizes how symbolically damaging this downgrade is to President Obama's economic record. Democrats can rail all they want about the tea party, but Republicans have controlled the House for a mere seven months. The entire GOP emphasis in those seven months—backed by the tea party—has been on reversing the historic spending damage of Mr. Obama's first two years.

Continue reading.

IMAGE CREDIT: The Astute Bloggers.