Herman Cain and Entitlements

Unlike some, I have been doing a lot of reading of the Republican hopefuls' websites to determine what they are saying about where they are on the issues.

And one of the things I appreciate about one of the candidates is that he felt free, within a Republicans-only field, to tack to the middle. That was Mitt Romney. He told Rick Perry that calling Social Security a "ponzi scheme" was wrong and that it would make him unelectable. Furthermore, he said on September 8th on Fox's Hannity Show: "If we nominate someone who the Democrats can correctly characterize as being opposed to Social Security, we will be obliterated as a party."

Obviously, Romney's people are not reading Herman Cain's website.

Cain's 9-9-9 plan is all the buzz these days. He has received criticism from Michelle Bachman, saying, “When you take the 9-9-9 plan and you turn it upside won, the devil is in the details." While this is the kind of quote that makes her seem really silly, what she's after here is the idea of a national sales tax. “The last thing you would do is give Congress another pipeline of a revenue stream,” she said. “And this gives Congress a pipeline in a sales tax.”

Frankly, I don't particularly like sales taxes on the national level because they are regressive. They hit poor people harder than they hit anyone else, with poor people paying a larger percentage of their income in these types of taxes for necessities than wealthy people, who can afford to simply save their money or invest it. With Cain's plan there would be a flat tax, with poor people paying 18% of their income in taxes and with the wealthy paying between 12 and 14% of their income in taxes (between the sales and income taxes both at 9%). Poor people currently pay around 2% of their income in taxes.

Many economists have looked into the 9% flat tax and have declared that it's not enough. Center for American Progress Director of Tax and Budget Policy Michael Linden ran the numbers and said. "it would leave us with deficits over 11 percent of GDP," which is higher than any deficit the United States has run since WW II.

But the key point of Cain's proposal is ending Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance and all safety nets. Here is what is on his website under the heading of "Entitlements" which is the current "dirty word" to Republicans, as "welfare" used to be back in the 1990s:

"For the generations or workers who have paid into Social Security and Medicare, the federal government’s inevitable failure to pay them as they retire is undeniably stealing. These are generations who have worked and sacrificed to leave this country a better place for their children and grand children as they retire. The current behavior of an out of control federal government does little to ease their minds.

"The federal government has imposed expensive and often counter-productive social and welfare programs on the states and the people. It is time to admit the mistakes, and get the federal government out of the way. This will allow states, cities, churches, charities and businesses to offer a helping hand instead of a handout where they live. People closest to the problems are the best ones to solve the problems effectively.

"We can fulfill our responsibility to our golden age citizens and future retirees by empowering them instead of restricting them."

(Emphasis mine.)

So, let me get this straight: Government should "get out of the way," and let the states (who have budget issues of their own), churches, charities and businesses ensure that elderly Americans who have worked all of their lives and have faithfully put in to the Social Security and Medicare system live with dignity? Churches, states, charities and businesses will send everyone a monthly social security check and provide healthcare, while the federal government just walks away?

Herman Cain wants to end Social Security and Medicare with his 9-9-9 plan, not by phasing it out, but by cutting it off abruptly—just walking away and saying, "Oh, sorry."

And Social Security is not an imposition on the states. Social Security is a federal check that arrives in the mail or in a recipient's bank account monthly. I know is because my 80-year-old father receives a Social Security benefit and so does my disabled older sister. And I have asked them. Medicare is also a federal benefit and not an imposition on the states. Medicaid is an imposition on the states because the federal government gives the states money and has them administer the program, but it is not funded out of payroll taxes like Medicare and Social Security. The Affordable Care Act is supposed to reduce the expenditures of the states on Medicaid by insuring everyone. The only other imposition on the states that comes out of payroll taxes in unemployment insurance. Herman Cain wants to end that, too?