Help
Senator from Massachusetts
Summary Description of Halfwit:
Quotes:
Historical Articles on Halfwit:
Political Party:
Democratic
Designing new page: original post has been moved to the last post on this thread!
Page 1 of 1
Kennedy, Ted
#1
- <<< . >>>
-
- Group: Site Owner
- Posts: 16,372
- Joined: 15-March 03
Posted 20 May 2003 - 08:57 PM
Ted Kennedy
Senator from Massachusetts
Summary Description of Halfwit:
Quotes:
Historical Articles on Halfwit:
Political Party:
Democratic
Designing new page: original post has been moved to the last post on this thread!
Senator from Massachusetts
Summary Description of Halfwit:
Quotes:
Historical Articles on Halfwit:
Political Party:
Democratic
Designing new page: original post has been moved to the last post on this thread!
#2
- Old Salt of the Sixth Fleet
-
- Group: Bronze
- Posts: 1,510
- Joined: 24-September 03
Posted 27 September 2003 - 04:16 PM
WorldNetDaily: Constitutional ignorance
A Minority View by Walter Williams
During last week's Senate confirmation hearings, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., laid into President Bush's attorney general nominee, John Ashcroft, about his strong support for the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment. Kennedy demanded that Ashcroft apologize to the American people.
For what did Kennedy think Ashcroft should apologize? In a speech, Ashcroft said that the reason the framers demanded a constitutional protection for "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" was to provide a measure of protection against tyranny in government.
Kennedy demonstrated gross ignorance about the founding of our nation. To throw such an intemperate, public hissy-fit, he must have counted on -- and correctly so -- the ignorance of his senatorial colleagues, the news media and most Americans.
A Minority View by Walter Williams
During last week's Senate confirmation hearings, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., laid into President Bush's attorney general nominee, John Ashcroft, about his strong support for the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment. Kennedy demanded that Ashcroft apologize to the American people.
For what did Kennedy think Ashcroft should apologize? In a speech, Ashcroft said that the reason the framers demanded a constitutional protection for "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" was to provide a measure of protection against tyranny in government.
Kennedy demonstrated gross ignorance about the founding of our nation. To throw such an intemperate, public hissy-fit, he must have counted on -- and correctly so -- the ignorance of his senatorial colleagues, the news media and most Americans.
#3
- <no title>
-
- Group: Gold
- Posts: 4,892
- Joined: 20-March 03
Posted 30 January 2005 - 12:44 PM
An example of why Kennedy is the Failure:
On the Administration's Failure to Provide a Realistic, Specific Plan to Bring Stability to Iraq
Published on Thursday, October 16, 2003 by CommonDreams.org
by US Senator Ted Kennedy Senate Floor Remarks
October 16, 2003
EXCERPT:
Nearly six months have elapsed since President Bush flew out to the aircraft carrier and declared "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq. Today, we all know all too well that the war is not over; the war goes on; the mission is not accomplished. An unnecessary war, based on unreliable and inaccurate intelligence, has not brought an end to danger. Instead, it has brought new dangers, imposed new costs, and taken more and more American lives each week.
We all agree that Saddam Hussein was a murderous tyrant, and his brutal regime was an affront to basic human decency. But Iraq was not a breeding ground for terrorism. Our invasion has made it one.
The trumped up reasons for going to war have collapsed. All the Administration's rationalizations as we prepared to go to war now stand revealed as "double-talk." The American people were told Saddam Hussein was building nuclear weapons. He was not. We were told he had stockpiles of other weapons of mass destruction. He did not. We were told he was involved in 9/11. He was not. We were told Iraq was attracting terrorists from Al Qaeda. It was not. We were told our soldiers would be viewed as liberators. They are not. We were told Iraq could pay for its own reconstruction. It cannot. We were told the war would make America safer. It has not.
Before the war, week after week after week after week, we were told lie after lie after lie after lie.
View Full Article:
CommonDreams.com
On the Administration's Failure to Provide a Realistic, Specific Plan to Bring Stability to Iraq
Published on Thursday, October 16, 2003 by CommonDreams.org
by US Senator Ted Kennedy Senate Floor Remarks
October 16, 2003
EXCERPT:
Nearly six months have elapsed since President Bush flew out to the aircraft carrier and declared "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq. Today, we all know all too well that the war is not over; the war goes on; the mission is not accomplished. An unnecessary war, based on unreliable and inaccurate intelligence, has not brought an end to danger. Instead, it has brought new dangers, imposed new costs, and taken more and more American lives each week.
We all agree that Saddam Hussein was a murderous tyrant, and his brutal regime was an affront to basic human decency. But Iraq was not a breeding ground for terrorism. Our invasion has made it one.
The trumped up reasons for going to war have collapsed. All the Administration's rationalizations as we prepared to go to war now stand revealed as "double-talk." The American people were told Saddam Hussein was building nuclear weapons. He was not. We were told he had stockpiles of other weapons of mass destruction. He did not. We were told he was involved in 9/11. He was not. We were told Iraq was attracting terrorists from Al Qaeda. It was not. We were told our soldiers would be viewed as liberators. They are not. We were told Iraq could pay for its own reconstruction. It cannot. We were told the war would make America safer. It has not.
Before the war, week after week after week after week, we were told lie after lie after lie after lie.
View Full Article:
CommonDreams.com
#4
- <no title>
-
- Group: Gold
- Posts: 4,892
- Joined: 20-March 03
Posted 06 February 2005 - 06:18 PM
Mr. Know It All, on Feb 6 2005, 08:18 AM, said:
Link:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Publ...9fpvkg.asp?pg=1
The Dems' Week from Hell
From: THE WEEKLY STANDARD/© Copyright 2005, News Corporation
From the February 14 / February 21, 2005 issue:
They're in a hole, and they keep digging.
by Noemie Emery
02/14/2005, Volume 010, Issue 21
EXCERPT:
THE DEMOCRATS' WORST WEEK AND a half since Black Tuesday (November 2, 2004, when the U.S. election returns came in) began on January 18, when Barbara Boxer took on Condi Rice in the Senate, and ended on Black Sunday (January 30, 2005, when Iraq held its first free election). In one comparatively short window of time, the Democrats managed to exhibit all of the class, grace, wisdom, presence, good sense, and strategic and tactical brilliance that had allowed them to move from absolute parity after the 2000 election to the loss of the House, Senate, and White House in the 2004 election, and left them apparently poised to lose even more. You too can turn yourself into a loser if you study and follow their recent behavior, and the cases to look at are these:
(1) Barbara Boxer and allies assault Condi Rice.
For mysterious reasons best known to themselves, a small diehard clique of old-line insurgents hiding out in the depths of the U.S. Senate decided to make confirmation hearings for Condoleezza Rice the venue of a bomb-throwing session, on the basis of two cherished liberal theories: one, that the war in Iraq is an utter catastrophe; and two, that while criticism of liberal nonwhites and women is always racist and sexist in nature, nonwhites and women who are right-wing or centrist are less than "authentic," and therefore deserve what they get. Thus, Margaret Carlson in the Los Angeles Times found nothing amiss in Boxer's calling Rice a liar and a lackey,
but insisted Boxer's critics were somehow attacking all women.
This followed by weeks an unprecedented onslaught from liberal cartoonists and columnists, who compared Rice to a parrot, a house slave, Aunt Jemima (with one hell of a weight loss), and Prissy in Gone With the Wind. It did not help that one of Boxer's main allies was Robert A. Byrd of West Virginia, who in a prior life had been a member of the Ku Klux Klan. As a method of expanding the vote of an ever-shrinking minority party, this tactic stunned some observers, who concluded the scheme had been cooked up by Karl Rove.
"I wouldn't think having a former kleagle of the Ku Klux Klan lead a futile floor fight against the nomination of the first black woman to be secretary of state is a good way to enhance the appeal of the Democratic party to swing voters, but maybe that's just me," opined Jack Kelly. No, Jack, it's not just you. It's you and Andrew Young, a partisan Democrat and genuine civil rights leader; it's you and Dorothy Height, head of the National Council of Negro Women; you and C. DeLores Tucker, former chair of the Black Caucus of the Democratic National Committee; you and Ron Lester, a Democratic pollster quoted by the New York Post's Deborah Orin as saying, "A lot of African Americans are watching this and they're wondering why [Democrats] are going after her so hard."
It's you and Colbert King, the liberal columnist for the Washington Post, who has little use for Bush but even less for the Boxer-Byrd style. King asks us to ponder a key Boxer statement: "I personally believe--this is my personal view--that your loyalty to the mission you were given, to sell the war, overwhelmed your respect for the truth." Writes King, "It's hard to imagine a more demeaning and offensive caricature of a prospective secretary of state." What a great tactic! What a keen way to appeal to white moderates, as well as to stop the leakage to Bush of black social conservatives, which at the moment has the left in a panic.
A former kleagle of the Ku Klux Klan berating a cultured black woman, one of whose childhood friends was blown up in Birmingham: This is the image you want to create for your party? Call it strike one.
(2) Ted Kennedy calls Iraq Vietnam.
Make sure and read the whole article, Noemie nails it...
-edited to be abstracted for Political Halfwit Forum, thank you for posting.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Publ...9fpvkg.asp?pg=1
The Dems' Week from Hell
From: THE WEEKLY STANDARD/© Copyright 2005, News Corporation
From the February 14 / February 21, 2005 issue:
They're in a hole, and they keep digging.
by Noemie Emery
02/14/2005, Volume 010, Issue 21
EXCERPT:
THE DEMOCRATS' WORST WEEK AND a half since Black Tuesday (November 2, 2004, when the U.S. election returns came in) began on January 18, when Barbara Boxer took on Condi Rice in the Senate, and ended on Black Sunday (January 30, 2005, when Iraq held its first free election). In one comparatively short window of time, the Democrats managed to exhibit all of the class, grace, wisdom, presence, good sense, and strategic and tactical brilliance that had allowed them to move from absolute parity after the 2000 election to the loss of the House, Senate, and White House in the 2004 election, and left them apparently poised to lose even more. You too can turn yourself into a loser if you study and follow their recent behavior, and the cases to look at are these:
(1) Barbara Boxer and allies assault Condi Rice.
For mysterious reasons best known to themselves, a small diehard clique of old-line insurgents hiding out in the depths of the U.S. Senate decided to make confirmation hearings for Condoleezza Rice the venue of a bomb-throwing session, on the basis of two cherished liberal theories: one, that the war in Iraq is an utter catastrophe; and two, that while criticism of liberal nonwhites and women is always racist and sexist in nature, nonwhites and women who are right-wing or centrist are less than "authentic," and therefore deserve what they get. Thus, Margaret Carlson in the Los Angeles Times found nothing amiss in Boxer's calling Rice a liar and a lackey,
but insisted Boxer's critics were somehow attacking all women.
This followed by weeks an unprecedented onslaught from liberal cartoonists and columnists, who compared Rice to a parrot, a house slave, Aunt Jemima (with one hell of a weight loss), and Prissy in Gone With the Wind. It did not help that one of Boxer's main allies was Robert A. Byrd of West Virginia, who in a prior life had been a member of the Ku Klux Klan. As a method of expanding the vote of an ever-shrinking minority party, this tactic stunned some observers, who concluded the scheme had been cooked up by Karl Rove.
"I wouldn't think having a former kleagle of the Ku Klux Klan lead a futile floor fight against the nomination of the first black woman to be secretary of state is a good way to enhance the appeal of the Democratic party to swing voters, but maybe that's just me," opined Jack Kelly. No, Jack, it's not just you. It's you and Andrew Young, a partisan Democrat and genuine civil rights leader; it's you and Dorothy Height, head of the National Council of Negro Women; you and C. DeLores Tucker, former chair of the Black Caucus of the Democratic National Committee; you and Ron Lester, a Democratic pollster quoted by the New York Post's Deborah Orin as saying, "A lot of African Americans are watching this and they're wondering why [Democrats] are going after her so hard."
It's you and Colbert King, the liberal columnist for the Washington Post, who has little use for Bush but even less for the Boxer-Byrd style. King asks us to ponder a key Boxer statement: "I personally believe--this is my personal view--that your loyalty to the mission you were given, to sell the war, overwhelmed your respect for the truth." Writes King, "It's hard to imagine a more demeaning and offensive caricature of a prospective secretary of state." What a great tactic! What a keen way to appeal to white moderates, as well as to stop the leakage to Bush of black social conservatives, which at the moment has the left in a panic.
A former kleagle of the Ku Klux Klan berating a cultured black woman, one of whose childhood friends was blown up in Birmingham: This is the image you want to create for your party? Call it strike one.
(2) Ted Kennedy calls Iraq Vietnam.
Make sure and read the whole article, Noemie nails it...
-edited to be abstracted for Political Halfwit Forum, thank you for posting.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
#5
- <no title>
-
- Group: Gold
- Posts: 4,892
- Joined: 20-March 03
Posted 06 February 2005 - 06:21 PM
pepperonikkid, on Feb 5 2005, 10:46 PM, said:
Hey Senator Kennedy…Iraqis Are Already Fighting!
mensnewsdaily.com
by Thomas D. Segel
February 4, 2005
Excerpt:
Writing commentary from the southern most tip of Texas doesn’t really place me at the heart of America’s information center. Like most of the population, I obtain the news from television, publications and the Internet. However, I still seem to be better informed than a leftist senator from Massachusetts.
Admittedly, I hold Ted Kennedy, the womanizing hero of Chappaquiddick, in very low esteem. My mind finds it impossible to understand how the people of that great state can keep electing this objectionable individual to one of the highest offices in our country.
Among Senator Kennedy’s ridiculous mutterings of recent days was a tirade on February 3 rd directed at our military leadership. He demanded to know…”when the Iraqis were going to start fighting?”
News Flash!!! Hey Senator…They’re already fighting! Iraqi Security Forces led a series of raids, which started on January 10, along with members of the multinational force. Near Mosul they uncovered 10 weapons and munitions caches, bomb making equipment and intelligence information.
In Fallujah, soldiers from the 3 rd Iraqi Intervention Force engaged in an operation, which uncovered a large weapons cache and also resulted in the capture of 41 insurgents. Iraqi Security Forces and the 1st Brigade of the 25th Infantry Division conducted another operation on January 18. They too confiscated weapons and captured nine people.
In a similar operation Iraqi Army soldiers from the 12 th Battalion engaged in a heavy firefight near Mosul. Two insurgents were wounded and evacuated to a local hospital. Three other insurgents were captured.
Full Story
-article to be abstracted for Political Halfwit Forum, thank you for posting.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
mensnewsdaily.com
by Thomas D. Segel
February 4, 2005
Excerpt:
Writing commentary from the southern most tip of Texas doesn’t really place me at the heart of America’s information center. Like most of the population, I obtain the news from television, publications and the Internet. However, I still seem to be better informed than a leftist senator from Massachusetts.
Admittedly, I hold Ted Kennedy, the womanizing hero of Chappaquiddick, in very low esteem. My mind finds it impossible to understand how the people of that great state can keep electing this objectionable individual to one of the highest offices in our country.
Among Senator Kennedy’s ridiculous mutterings of recent days was a tirade on February 3 rd directed at our military leadership. He demanded to know…”when the Iraqis were going to start fighting?”
News Flash!!! Hey Senator…They’re already fighting! Iraqi Security Forces led a series of raids, which started on January 10, along with members of the multinational force. Near Mosul they uncovered 10 weapons and munitions caches, bomb making equipment and intelligence information.
In Fallujah, soldiers from the 3 rd Iraqi Intervention Force engaged in an operation, which uncovered a large weapons cache and also resulted in the capture of 41 insurgents. Iraqi Security Forces and the 1st Brigade of the 25th Infantry Division conducted another operation on January 18. They too confiscated weapons and captured nine people.
In a similar operation Iraqi Army soldiers from the 12 th Battalion engaged in a heavy firefight near Mosul. Two insurgents were wounded and evacuated to a local hospital. Three other insurgents were captured.
Full Story
-article to be abstracted for Political Halfwit Forum, thank you for posting.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
#6
- <no title>
-
- Group: Gold
- Posts: 4,892
- Joined: 20-March 03
Posted 08 February 2005 - 07:50 PM
pepperonikkid, on Feb 8 2005, 07:41 AM, said:
Ted Kennedy, Freedom Fighter
RealClearPolitics.com
Commentary
February 7 2005
Excerpt:
Ted Kennedy was so excited about the first democratic elections in Iraq in more than a half century he decided to try and undermine them by giving a highly publicized defeatist rant at Johns’ Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies on January 27. Three days later Kennedy's office put out this wildly enthusiastic one paragraph statement saying the Senator thought the Iraqi elections were "a good first step" but "not a cure" and urging President Bush to hurry up and "look beyond" the vote.
Given that we've seen two other remarkable cases of democracy blossoming around the world in the last six months, I wondered if Senator Kennedy had greeted the historic events in Afghanistan and the Ukraine with the same passion and enthusiasm with which he handled Iraq. The answer, not surprisingly, is "yes."
On October 8 of last year, one day before Afghans went to the polls, Kennedy delivered this statement on the floor of the United States Senate:
Afghanistan still faces fundamental threats to the casting of ballots on Saturday, let alone its long-term stability and prosperity. Elections are vitally important to the process of rebuilding a free country, but they are not a panacea for the myriad problems that face the people in Afghanistan.
Sounds pretty familiar. This time, however, it looks as if Senator Kennedy didn't bother with congratulating the people of Afghanistan on their historic achievement. Kennedy's web site shows that he did find time to issue three statements that weekend (October 9-10), but praising democracy in Afghanistan wasn't among them. Nor does a Lexis-Nexis search for the month of October turn up any trace of Senator Kennedy saying a single thing (either positive or negative) about the Afghan elections. It's as if they never happened.
Full Story
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
RealClearPolitics.com
Commentary
February 7 2005
Excerpt:
Ted Kennedy was so excited about the first democratic elections in Iraq in more than a half century he decided to try and undermine them by giving a highly publicized defeatist rant at Johns’ Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies on January 27. Three days later Kennedy's office put out this wildly enthusiastic one paragraph statement saying the Senator thought the Iraqi elections were "a good first step" but "not a cure" and urging President Bush to hurry up and "look beyond" the vote.
Given that we've seen two other remarkable cases of democracy blossoming around the world in the last six months, I wondered if Senator Kennedy had greeted the historic events in Afghanistan and the Ukraine with the same passion and enthusiasm with which he handled Iraq. The answer, not surprisingly, is "yes."
On October 8 of last year, one day before Afghans went to the polls, Kennedy delivered this statement on the floor of the United States Senate:
Afghanistan still faces fundamental threats to the casting of ballots on Saturday, let alone its long-term stability and prosperity. Elections are vitally important to the process of rebuilding a free country, but they are not a panacea for the myriad problems that face the people in Afghanistan.
Sounds pretty familiar. This time, however, it looks as if Senator Kennedy didn't bother with congratulating the people of Afghanistan on their historic achievement. Kennedy's web site shows that he did find time to issue three statements that weekend (October 9-10), but praising democracy in Afghanistan wasn't among them. Nor does a Lexis-Nexis search for the month of October turn up any trace of Senator Kennedy saying a single thing (either positive or negative) about the Afghan elections. It's as if they never happened.
Full Story
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
#7
- <no title>
-
- Group: Gold
- Posts: 4,892
- Joined: 20-March 03
Posted 10 February 2005 - 07:15 AM
formerlurker, on Feb 10 2005, 06:08 AM, said:
Kennedy's `Swift' flight home costs taxpayers $2,490
BostonHerald.com/Herald Interactive Advertising Systems, Inc.
By Andrew Miga
Thursday, February 10, 2005
[Excerpt]
WASHINGTON - Sen. Edward M. Kennedy [related, bio] - stirring memories of ex-Gov. Jane M. Swift's state police chopper boondoggle - ordered up a taxpayer-funded $2,490 helicopter ride home to Hyannisport last May after attending events in New Bedford, records show.
The 48-mile flight to Cape Cod cost U.S. taxpayers $51.87 per mile.
The senator's chopper ride home on May 21 to his family's famed compound allowed him to avoid the late Friday afternoon traffic congestion that clogs roadways and bridges to Cape Cod during the spring and summer weekends.
``Driving - or for that matter commercial air travel - at that time of day would have taken several hours,'' said Stephanie Cutter, a senior Kennedy adviser.
Rest of article
Of course digging into his own deep pockets to pay for this trip wasn't even considered.
Anyone else find it ironic that Teddy - after doing his environmental p.r. bit - chooses a gass guzzling helicopter to jaunt home in?
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
BostonHerald.com/Herald Interactive Advertising Systems, Inc.
By Andrew Miga
Thursday, February 10, 2005
[Excerpt]
WASHINGTON - Sen. Edward M. Kennedy [related, bio] - stirring memories of ex-Gov. Jane M. Swift's state police chopper boondoggle - ordered up a taxpayer-funded $2,490 helicopter ride home to Hyannisport last May after attending events in New Bedford, records show.
The 48-mile flight to Cape Cod cost U.S. taxpayers $51.87 per mile.
The senator's chopper ride home on May 21 to his family's famed compound allowed him to avoid the late Friday afternoon traffic congestion that clogs roadways and bridges to Cape Cod during the spring and summer weekends.
``Driving - or for that matter commercial air travel - at that time of day would have taken several hours,'' said Stephanie Cutter, a senior Kennedy adviser.
Rest of article
Of course digging into his own deep pockets to pay for this trip wasn't even considered.
Anyone else find it ironic that Teddy - after doing his environmental p.r. bit - chooses a gass guzzling helicopter to jaunt home in?
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
#8
- <no title>
-
- Group: Gold
- Posts: 4,892
- Joined: 20-March 03
Posted 16 February 2005 - 08:42 AM
Inspections Can Accomplish More Than War
Quote
"If our goal is disarmament, we are likely to accomplish more by inspections than by war."
Source: http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/21/wbr.bush....edup/index.html
added 06/07/03
Quote
"I continue to be convinced that this is the wrong war at the wrong time. The threat from Iraq is not imminent, and it will distract America from the two more immediate threats to our security -- the clear and present danger of terrorism and the crisis with North Korea."
Source: http://www.talkleft....ves/002020.html
Source: http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/21/wbr.bush....edup/index.html
added 06/07/03
Quote
"The Administration's doctrine is a call for twenty-first-century American imperialism that no other nation can or should accept."
Source: http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20021...&s=featherstone
added 06/07/03
Iraq War Was a Fraud
Quote
"There was no imminent threat. This was made up in Texas, announced in January to the Republican leadership that war was going to take place and was going to be good politically. This whole thing was a fraud."
Source: http://www2.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/...edt09202003.htm
added 09/20/03
Contact:
How to find contact information
Posting content to this topic
1. Read our guidelines for suggesting additions.
2. Check all the messages in this topic for duplication.
3. Understand that this topic is not for conversation, but only for posting of direct information. It's a one-way conversation.
4. Understand that your post may be removed from this topic if we use it. We also reserve the right to edit or remove your post at our discretion.
#9
- <no title>
-
- Group: Gold
- Posts: 4,892
- Joined: 20-March 03
Posted 17 February 2005 - 05:08 PM
pepperonikkid, on Feb 17 2005, 12:42 PM, said:
There's No Rolling Back
spectator.org
By David Hogberg
Published 2/17/2005 12:07:30 AM
Excerpt:
The deceptions perpetrated in the name of opposing Social Security reform are dime a dozen. The latest to gain prominence is the ruse that Social Security can be saved by rolling back a portion of the Bush tax cut.
For example, Senator Dianne Feinstein last week claimed that "repealing President Bush's tax cut for those earning more than $200,000 and transferring the revenues to Social Security... could save about $2.9 trillion over 75 years."
The great one, Ted Kennedy, had this recent exchange with Tim Russert on Meet the Press:
MR. RUSSERT: So you would roll back the president's tax cuts.
SEN. KENNEDY: That's a possible -- for one-third, he wants to make it permanent. You can roll back just one-third of it and solve the Social Security problem.
Kennedy gets his "one-third" figure from numbers provided by the left-wing Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. The CBPP gets it numbers by comparing the "present value" of the Bush tax cut with that of the Social Security shortfall. Present value is simply the amount of money that would have to be invested today in order to come up with a larger amount of money in the future. The Social Security actuaries estimate that the present value of the Social Security shortfall over the next 75 years is $3.7 trillion; in other words, $3.7 trillion would have to be invested right now to cover Social Security's deficits for the period 2004-2078. The CBPP calculates that the present value of the Bush tax cut over that same period is $11.1 trillion. Divide 3.7 by 11.1 and Kennedy has his one-third figure.
The CBPP comparison is bogus. To understand why, it is important to realize that the present-value figures for both the Social Security shortfall and the Bush tax cut only permit a comparison of a given time period, in this case 2004-2078. They do not enable us to make a year-to-year comparison. That is where the CBPP numbers begin to fall apart. For example, in its calculation of the Bush tax cut, the CBPP includes tax revenue from 2004-2017. But those are years when Social Security is running a surplus and, thus, extra revenue from rolling back the Bush tax cut would not be needed. The present-value comparison does not tell us if revenue from rolling back the Bush tax cut will be enough to pay Social Security benefits in each year from 2018-2078, when Social Security pays out more in benefits than it collects in payroll taxes.
Full Story
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
spectator.org
By David Hogberg
Published 2/17/2005 12:07:30 AM
Excerpt:
The deceptions perpetrated in the name of opposing Social Security reform are dime a dozen. The latest to gain prominence is the ruse that Social Security can be saved by rolling back a portion of the Bush tax cut.
For example, Senator Dianne Feinstein last week claimed that "repealing President Bush's tax cut for those earning more than $200,000 and transferring the revenues to Social Security... could save about $2.9 trillion over 75 years."
The great one, Ted Kennedy, had this recent exchange with Tim Russert on Meet the Press:
MR. RUSSERT: So you would roll back the president's tax cuts.
SEN. KENNEDY: That's a possible -- for one-third, he wants to make it permanent. You can roll back just one-third of it and solve the Social Security problem.
Kennedy gets his "one-third" figure from numbers provided by the left-wing Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. The CBPP gets it numbers by comparing the "present value" of the Bush tax cut with that of the Social Security shortfall. Present value is simply the amount of money that would have to be invested today in order to come up with a larger amount of money in the future. The Social Security actuaries estimate that the present value of the Social Security shortfall over the next 75 years is $3.7 trillion; in other words, $3.7 trillion would have to be invested right now to cover Social Security's deficits for the period 2004-2078. The CBPP calculates that the present value of the Bush tax cut over that same period is $11.1 trillion. Divide 3.7 by 11.1 and Kennedy has his one-third figure.
The CBPP comparison is bogus. To understand why, it is important to realize that the present-value figures for both the Social Security shortfall and the Bush tax cut only permit a comparison of a given time period, in this case 2004-2078. They do not enable us to make a year-to-year comparison. That is where the CBPP numbers begin to fall apart. For example, in its calculation of the Bush tax cut, the CBPP includes tax revenue from 2004-2017. But those are years when Social Security is running a surplus and, thus, extra revenue from rolling back the Bush tax cut would not be needed. The present-value comparison does not tell us if revenue from rolling back the Bush tax cut will be enough to pay Social Security benefits in each year from 2018-2078, when Social Security pays out more in benefits than it collects in payroll taxes.
Full Story
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Share this topic:
Page 1 of 1