Linda McMahon Proposed Social Security "Sunset" At Tea Party Forum By Matt Sledge | HuffPost | 09/26/2012 7:22 pm EDT Excerpts: NEW YORK In little-noticed remarks at a Tea Party town hall meeting earlier this year, Republican Connecticut Senate candidate Linda McMahon proposed introducing a "sunset provision" into the Social Security Act. McMahon, the former CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment, has consistently dodged questions about cutting government entitlement programs in her two Senate runs. Speaking before a group of Tea Party supporters in Waterford, Conn. on April 20, however, McMahon said she would consider making major changes to Social Security, from raising the retirement age to means-testing benefits. She also proposed introducing a "sunset provision" - the legislative term for putting an expiration date on a law unless it is renewed. It's unclear what McMahon meant when she spoke about a "sunset provision" for Social Security, and her campaign did not directly address the word in a statement. "Linda McMahon is committed to reforming entitlements without breaking the promises we've made to our seniors," said Todd Abrajano. At the April Tea Party gathering, McMahon said in response to a question about how to "strengthen" Social Security and Medicare that "we cannot continue doing things the way we are doing with Social Security. We're just simply going to be bankrupt." The candidate later continued, "In other words, I believe in sunset provisions when we pass this kind of legislation, so that you take a look at it 10, 15 years down the road to make sure that it's still going to fund itself. Social Security will run out of money if we continue to do what we're doing, if we rob the trust fund, if we think that there's any money there." What McMahon's idea for a Social Security Act "sunset provision" means is far from clear. The health of the government-run retirement program depends in part on current workers continuing to contribute payroll taxes, as well as a $2.7 trillion trust fund that is projected to last until 2033 if nothing is done to change the program. In a 2011 speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels (R) used a phrase similar to the one used by McMahon. Like McMahon, Daniels brought up the idea of means testing (to weed out the affluent as beneficiaries) and raising the retirement age. In effect, the new Social Security he envisioned may have very little in common with the one we already know: not all seniors would be able to access it, and others would have to wait years further into their retirements to take advantage of it. Daniels also proposed decreasing Social Security's cost-of-living adjustments. The program, he said, "should protect benefits against inflation, but not overprotect them." After the speech, conservatives praised Daniels for his outspoken, tough-on-entitlement speech. But McMahon has generally been far more circumspect: in her 2010 Senate race against Richard Blumenthal, she said discussions about fixing Social Security have to be done "outside the political arena," and refused to outline specifics about her plan for the program. In the Tea Party video from April 2012, McMahon did stipulate that any changes to Social Security should be done in a "bipartisan" fashion and that she would not support changing benefits for current retirees. A new poll released Wednesday by Public Policy Polling had McMahon trailing her opponent, Democratic US Representative Chris Murphy, by six points, 48-42, with a +/-3.5 percent margin of error. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/26/linda-mcmahon-social-security-tea-party_n_1917626.html ....... It appears that a major plan for republicans if they win the election will be to privitize Social Security and Medicare and we all know what that means...a huge cash cow for republicans to raid while they reform both social entitlements that Americans pay for themselves. The fact that government has raided the funds periodically doesnt help matters. It should not be up to Congress to change, get rid of, or implement new restrictions after we have paid into a fund for many years only to have the age for retirement changed, new rules put into place to hinder citizens from collecting on their retirement funds. It should be up to us...who pay into SS and Medicare with our funds. The Social Security needs to be changed so that there is a cut-off place for the wealthy, who have put in more..but still collect more than they need to because of their wealth. A cut-off amount should be put in place, no raiding the funds, and otherwise keeping it a government controlled entity.
Sounds like an excellent plan. Social Security needs to be largely phased out. One good way to phase out Social Security would be simply to institute a means test. If you can afford a vacation home, and a boat, and a giant soft Cadillac, and all kinds of huge presents for your grandkids, why should you be getting a handout from me, who can afford none of those things?
There are many libertarians in the Tea Party movement and there are some libertarians within the GOP. Not really news to most people.
I'd have to agree that SS is an idea that maybe made sense in the beginning, but unless we establish a lockbox for the funds, we're going to need an exit plan.
All the suggestions other than sunset are the things that will have to be done but the Dems will not even talk about saving SS. The sunset provision forces Congress to address these issues for the future of SS. The dems plan to save SS? Do nothing.