Jeanie Forrester - misses the point on Social Security but praises its redistributional aspects - Granite Grok

Jeanie Forrester – misses the point on Social Security but praises its redistributional aspects

Jeanie-Forrester
She’s not the most conservative candidate either…

Bastiat is rolling in his grave.

About to be former NH State Senator Jeanie Forrester (but “selected” to be NH GOP Chair, according to NH GOP Committeeman Steve “Bikini Man On A Plane” Duprey, NH Senate President Chuck Morse and Gov-to-be Chris Sununu) decided that she just had to write an Op-Ed praising Social Security (full piece after the jump).  Curiously (or not, depending on your point of view and leaving aside the debate of whether it is Constitutional and if it should remain a Government pension or privately held) she decided to concentrate on saving it by emphasising how those recipients spend that money:

This outcome will have significant negative ripple effects. The income derived by Social Security benefits kicks off a cascade of events felt throughout the entire economy. That money is spent on goods and services, which supports businesses and creates jobs. But when an older American takes a cut in their already limited budget, he or she will make rational economic choices such as deciding against buying a new car or choosing not to eat out. These choices are felt throughout the economy.

According to a new analysis by AARP, Social Security fuels $1.6 trillion in economic activity in the United States. The cost of doing nothing is estimated to be upwards of $400 billion in lost economic output. Here in New Hampshire we’d see a $2 billion annual loss of economic output, which in turn could cost us around 11,100 jobs.

First off, anyone quoting AARP for anything forgets that AARP was a major 

booster for the wealth redistribution that is Obamacare which is already in economic trouble as it has turned out to be the wealth transfer system we Conservatives always said it would be to the tune of around $767 Billion.  Plus, as we said before and have been proven right, AARP is really not much than a machine at using seniors as cash cows for all of their sales products – like Medicaid gap programs from which they make a LOT of money.  IMHO, it’s about the seniors’ money and not the seniors themselves.  So of COURSE they support keeping and expanding government supplied programs for them – its all about that next marginal percentage opportunity for them.

And of course, Jeanie Forrester, as a State Senator, was one of the Republican votes that implemented Obamacare’s Medicaid Expansion.  Sure, she “turned” on it this time around to re-authorize it but Chuck Morse and Jeb Bradley didn’t much mind as they knew they already had the votes to pass it.  So, she got a Mulligan on it and allowed her to campaign against it.  Fat lot of good it did her in the primary – trying to align with the base AFTER she made it happen AGAINST the cries of the base (and yes, there’s a moral about Consistency in there).

But to summarize: She is in favor of:

  1. Social Security – THE Progressive capstone of FDR’s term which was a Socialist goal
  2. Obamacare – THE Progressive capstone of Obama’s term which has been a Socialist goal
  3. NH Medicaid Expansion – the same as #2 but this time a Progressive REPUBLICAN means to lie (no money is free) and try to get Democrat votes

With our tax money. These are small government, less tax, Republican ideals now? Which brings me to my main point about this Op-Ed by someone who wants to be NH GOP Chair – how does squaring this circle actually work?  Well, compared to the tax cheat whose butt is still warming that seat, it’s worse – at least J-Ho was negligent with her own money – this shows that Jeanie Forrester doesn’t much care about US keeping our own money in our own pocket (formerly a Biggie Republican ideal, right?) but is fine with taking it from those that have it?

Sidenote: Didn’t Hillary say she was going to heavily tax the wealthy simply because they had all the money – as if it was her’s to take in the first place?  Wolves, sheep, and what’s the vote for dinner.  Tyranny comes not just from the barrel of a gun but by the point of a pen as well

Again, redistribution.  Not an American ideal but the emphasis of a foreign political philosophy born of Europe.  With her own words, she favors it.

But let’s go back to her own words:

This outcome will have significant negative ripple effects. The income derived by Social Security benefits kicks off a cascade of events felt throughout the entire economy. That money is spent on goods and services, which supports businesses and creates jobs. But when an older American takes a cut in their already limited budget, he or she will make rational economic choices such as deciding against buying a new car or choosing not to eat out. These choices are felt throughout the economy.

According to a new analysis by AARP, Social Security fuels $1.6 trillion in economic activity in the United States. The cost of doing nothing is estimated to be upwards of $400 billion in lost economic output. Here in New Hampshire we’d see a $2 billion annual loss of economic output, which in turn could cost us around 11,100 jobs.

The economic ignorance exhibited by this politician is large.  Jeanie:

for those people to have that  income derived by Social Security benefits, where did Govt get it in the first place??

She touts the economic “stimulus” of that Social Security redistribution (remember, one of the original names for this was Widows Welfare.  Knowing it would never pass politically, they EXPANDED it and sold it as an “insurance plan” but it has ALWAYS been a pay-as-you-go program with no lockboxes and other govt agencies “borrowed” it with IOUs – which can only be repaid from even MORE taxes) but leaves out one REALLY IMPORTANT point of interest:

What about the economic worth if those you took it from spent it on their own?

Turn it around – what is the LOSS in economic activity from those that earned it and had it taken away?

But redistributionists don’t think that way and don’t want to answer that question because YOU HATE THE POOR!  AND AGED!  YOU SELFISH BAS…oh sorry, almost went out of control there.

Frederic Bastiat, that famous French philosopher and economist already dealt with this problem centuries ago in a parable called “the Broken Window” :

Have you ever witnessed the anger of the good shopkeeper, James B., when his careless son happened to break a square of glass? If you have been present at such a scene, you will most assuredly bear witness to the fact, that every one of the spectators, were there even thirty of them, by common consent apparently, offered the unfortunate owner this invariable consolation — “It is an ill wind that blows nobody good. Everybody must live, and what would become of the glaziers if panes of glass were never broken?”

Now, this form of condolence contains an entire theory, which it will be well to show up in this simple case, seeing that it is precisely the same as that which, unhappily, regulates the greater part of our economical institutions.

Suppose it cost six francs to repair the damage, and you say that the accident brings six francs to the glazier’s trade — that it encourages that trade to the amount of six francs — I grant it; I have not a word to say against it; you reason justly. The glazier comes, performs his task, receives his six francs, rubs his hands, and, in his heart, blesses the careless child. All this is that which is seen.

But if, on the other hand, you come to the conclusion, as is too often the case, that it is a good thing to break windows, that it causes money to circulate, and that the encouragement of industry in general will be the result of it, you will oblige me to call out, “Stop there! your theory is confined to that which is seen; it takes no account of that which is not seen.”

It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way, which this accident has prevented.

Let us take a view of industry in general, as affected by this circumstance. The window being broken, the glazier’s trade is encouraged to the amount of six francs; this is that which is seen. If the window had not been broken, the shoemaker’s trade (or some other) would have been encouraged to the amount of six francs; this is that which is not seen.

And if that which is not seen is taken into consideration, because it is a negative fact, as well as that which is seen, because it is a positive fact, it will be understood that neither industry in general, nor the sum total of national labour, is affected, whether windows are broken or not.

Now let us consider James B. himself. In the former supposition, that of the window being broken, he spends six francs, and has neither more nor less than he had before, the enjoyment of a window.

In the second, where we suppose the window not to have been broken, he would have spent six francs on shoes, and would have had at the same time the enjoyment of a pair of shoes and of a window.

Now, as James B. forms a part of society, we must come to the conclusion, that, taking it altogether, and making an estimate of its enjoyments and its labours, it has lost the value of the broken window.

When we arrive at this unexpected conclusion: “Society loses the value of things which are uselessly destroyed;” and we must assent to a maxim which will make the hair of protectionists stand on end — To break, to spoil, to waste, is not to encourage national labour; or, more briefly, “destruction is not profit.”

What will you say, Monsieur Industriel — what will you say, disciples of good M. F. Chamans, who has calculated with so much precision how much trade would gain by the burning of Paris, from the number of houses it would be necessary to rebuild?

I am sorry to disturb these ingenious calculations, as far as their spirit has been introduced into our legislation; but I beg him to begin them again, by taking into the account that which is not seen, and placing it alongside of that which is seen. The reader must take care to remember that there are not two persons only, but three concerned in the little scene which I have submitted to his attention. One of them, James B., represents the consumer, reduced, by an act of destruction, to one enjoyment instead of two. Another under the title of the glazier, shows us the producer, whose trade is encouraged by the accident. The third is the shoemaker (or some other tradesman), whose labour suffers proportionably by the same cause. It is this third person who is always kept in the shade, and who, personating that which is not seen, is a necessary element of the problem. It is he who shows us how absurd it is to think we see a profit in an act of destruction. It is he who will soon teach us that it is not less absurd to see a profit in a restriction, which is, after all, nothing else than a partial destruction. Therefore, if you will only go to the root of all the arguments which are adduced in its favour, all you will find will be the paraphrase of this vulgar saying — What would become of the glaziers, if nobody ever broke windows?

In this, Jeanie is touting the “good” that comes from breaking my “wallet window” and everyone else that pays this tax. No, it does not make Society richer as she is trying to insinuate but those of us whose “window” has been broken by Government (and slagging the Right to Private Property along the way) are less wealthy for it.  But she won’t bring that up, will you Jeanie?  You can’t be intellectually honest in this – why?

And no, this is NOT “just the price we pay to live in civilization”. But yes, this is Government dependency – and Jeanie makes it seem otherwise.  I had this discussion for years with my Mom who, until the day she died, believed that what she paid in SS taxes was in a special account that always had enough to fund that monthly check.  She resisted my attempts to bring her into my home saying that she wanted her “independence” – and always got made when I told her that her independence was a mere illusion.

So, are we seeing more smoke and mirrors here?  And remember, we’re $20 Trillion in the whole already with $125 Trillion with unfunded liabilities – and the majority of that is from our entitled welfare state.  Who, Jeanie, is going to fund that “free money” to cover that?  Remember, our national GDP is only about $18 Trillion / year.

So instead of arguing to keep the faucet going, Mrs. NH GOP Chair wannabee, how about getting real about the VERY important question – whose pocket are you going to pick even deeper as it is clear that Government can’t be reeled in and spend LESS?  Are you that mathematically disinclined? Or all that willing to keep up this facade that is as real as an old Western town from the movies?

Remember Jeanie – your hands are not clean in all this.  Politicians like you foisted disasters like this upon us – and you want to keep this dependency going even as the demographics say it is a very losing proposition.  Jeanie, tell me: what was the ratio of retirees/workers when the program started vs what that same ratio is today (it is rather horrifying knowing the burden it places on the young)?  How can it be moral for me to demand that FAR fewer lower to middle class workers must have a large chunk their wealth taken from them and their families to support moi?

************

Jeanie Forrester – Social Security is too important to our economy to keep kicking the can

Social Security is a major factor in New Hampshire’s economy and the lives of one-in-five individuals. Almost three hundred thousand Granite Staters received $4.5 billion in benefits in 2015, generating a total of $7.7 billion in economic activity in New Hampshire. Why then did this vital program, which faces a looming shortfall that demands urgent action, received such little attention from the candidates seeking the Presidency of the United States?

The problem is well documented. Unless President-elect Trump takes a stand and initiates decisive action, the Social Security Trust Fund will be depleted by 2034. At that point, people who receive Social Security will face an almost 25 percent benefit cut — that’s a cut of $4,000 to $10,000 for the typical Granite Stater.

This outcome will have significant negative ripple effects. The income derived by Social Security benefits kicks off a cascade of events felt throughout the entire economy. That money is spent on goods and services, which supports businesses and creates jobs. But when an older American takes a cut in their already limited budget, he or she will make rational economic choices such as deciding against buying a new car or choosing not to eat out. These choices are felt throughout the economy.

According to a new analysis by AARP, Social Security fuels $1.6 trillion in economic activity in the United States. The cost of doing nothing is estimated to be upwards of $400 billion in lost economic output. Here in New Hampshire we’d see a $2 billion annual loss of economic output, which in turn could cost us around 11,100 jobs.

I am especially concerned about what those cuts would do to smaller New Hampshire communities where Social Security represents a disproportionately large portion of the entire community’s economic activity. I have had the honor of serving Senate District 2 for six years. The district is large and consists of 27 cities and towns, most of which are very small. Consider the town of Bridgewater. Almost 20 percent of its residents receive Social Security retirement benefits today and nearly 50 percent of residents are nearing retirement age. Or consider tiny Ellsworth with its population of 83, 30 percent of whom receive Social Security retirement benefits. What happens to these places if a major source of their economic activity is slashed by 25 percent? I hope we never find out.

AARP urged the candidates for president to take a stand and explain their plans for the long-term solvency of Social Security. The campaign had considerable success in the primary, encouraging candidates from both parties to release plans to fix the program. Unfortunately during the general election, reasoned discourse on issues that ought to transcend party lines gave way to increasingly nasty personal attacks.

Social Security affects the life of every Granite Stater. We mustn’t allow the politicians to dodge the issue any longer.  The media play an important role in this exercise. The most important role though is played by we the people. We must hold the candidates accountable.

(Republican Jeanie Forrester of Meredith represents District 2 in the N.H. Senate.)

>