Fort Worth Star Tele Don Erler OP-ED lies-says opposition to SS "spurious"

[papau]

Don Erler presumes to articulate the political thought of Texans in his collection of essays, Lone Star State of Mind: A Former Political Theorist Explores Real World Issues. Erler, a Dallas native, Fort Worth business owner, and columnist for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, received his undergraduate degree and two graduate degrees in multidisciplinary studies from the University of Dallas in Irving, Texas, and taught American political thought and constitutional law at Assumption College in Worcester,Massachusetts, for six years in the late 1960s to mid-1970s. His former professor, George Anastaplo, describes Erler as an "old-line Texas conservative." He believes Conservatives exercise common sense and liberals do not-- and poverty is "the result of bad breaks and worse choices" (Don Erler; Lone Star State of Mind: A Former Political Theorist Explores Real World Issues p. 79), and the right to success is accompanied by the right to starve (p. 91). He is famous for contradictions or inconsistencies in his viewpoints - (p. 3)he regards Clinton as "enormously bright" and "undeserving of removal from office" while on (p. 10) Clinton is deserving of removal from office in another. In one of his more fascinating paradoxes, he advocates government censorship to protect the public against exposure to violence and obscenity, because modern American culture cannot curtail its own vices (p. 150), yet he asserts elsewhere that the American people are better fit to interpret the Constitution through their elected legislative assembly than the Supreme Court (p. 162).

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/columnists/don_erler/10960709.htm

Opposition based on ... what?

By Don Erler Special to the Star-Telegram 2/20/05

<snip>Several readers retorted that the trust fund is "real" because our government always honors its obligations. Obviously, but that's not the point. BUT THAT IS THE POINT - THAT IS WHY IT IS AN INVESTMENT THAT CAN BE SOLD TO JAPAN.

<snip>Because Social Security is not now indexed for longevity, developments such as medical advances in the treatment of heart disease or cancer would cause current solvency projections to evanesce. Therefore, an unreformed Social Security's change from a pay-as-you-go program is imminent. IS HE STUPID? THE PROJECTIONS ALL TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE EXPECTED INCREASE LONGEVITY.

<snip>This concern would be appropriate over a short investing span. But the average return for stocks over the last century, including the Great Depression, has been 6.4 percent per year. Even a 60-40 percent mix of stocks and bonds would have returned more than 5 percent, nearly three times better than Social Security's paltry return. THERE IS NO FUND ON WHICH YOU GET A RETURN - SOC SEC IS AN INTERGENERATIONAL INSURANCE PROGRAM -GUESS HE FINDS DISABILITY AND SURVIVOR BENEFITS OF NO VALUE

<snip>Cato's Brannon told me that Bush's plan is quite similar to "Plan 2" as proposed by a special presidential commission in 2001, which has been "scored" by Social Security's actuaries. It includes transition costs of approximately $2 trillion; but Bush's plan, which includes what Brannon calls a "higher offset rate than Plan 2," would require only $750 billion. HE KNOWS NOTHING OF THE LAST 10 YEARS IN CHILE AND THE PROBLEMS - BUT HE DARES TO SAY KRUGMAN IS SPEAKING NONSENSE - AND EVEN CHALLENGES THE KRUGMAN $15 TRILLION TRANSITION TOTAL COST BECAUSE OF SOME UNKNOWN HIGHER OFFSET RATE (READ BENEFIT CUTS) APPLIED TO THE SOC SEC ACTUARY'S ESTIMATE FOR FIRST 10 YEARS -COMPARED TO KRUGMAN'S NEXT 75 YEARS (75 YEARS IS THE BASIS FOR THE $3.7 TRILLION SS "PROBLEM" WE ARE TRYING TO FIX - THE $20 T SS PROBLEM IS AN INFINITE NUMBER OF YEARS AND/OR STARTS AFTER 2020 AND THE POINT WHERE THE SOC SEC TRUST FUND HAS FINANCED $7 TRILLION OF TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH - WHICH THE RICH DO NOT WANT TO PAY BACK)

"So if the major objections to private accounts are spurious, what explains the continuing opposition?"<snip>