Liveblogging the Price/Lawson Debate
October 08, 2010
[Update: This post has been edited for grammar and clarity. Additionally, I have added some more introductory matter.]
Rob here, live-blogging tonight's debate between Congressman David Price and Rebpublican challenger BJ Lawson. The debate is co-sponsored by BCR and the Independent Weekly.
A large crowd has turned out for tonight's debate, with a large number of Lawson supporters wearing Lawson for Congress pins. Upon my arrival at ten 'til 6, there were already more than 75 Lawson supporters present and passing out literature and pins. Unfortunately, Durham Station has a capacity of just under 160. At 6:20, DPD called the event at capacity, and no new arrivals were alllowed to enter.
Unfortunately, the demographic present at the debate was not representative of Durham, in that it was overwhelmingly white and over 50 years old. There could be many reasons for this, so I won't attempt to speculate.
The format is 90-second response, 90-second rebuttal, followed by a 30-second rebuttal by the original respondent.
Opening Statements
Price- Lifelong resident of the Triangle, and understands what makes the Triangle thrive. Focus on infrastructure investments, education at all levels, and a critique of Lawson's positions.
Lawson- A promise of new ideas for Washington. Focus on health care, restoring trust in government, and job creation through local (not Federal) mechanisms. Claims that problems have been created over the past 20 years, the time Price has been in office.
America spends more per capita than any other nation on healthcare, yet has not had the best healthcare outcomes. How should the nation address gaps in coverage and low quality of care?
Lawson- Wants to change all primary care to cash-based system. Cash will be required up front for all primary care, reducing the cost of un-needed primary care visits. Did not address access to care.
Price- That plan will turn medicine into a gated community. Lawson wants to abolish Medicare and Medicaid, leaving millions of America with health coverage. Price wants to create an open market for healthcare, expanding personal choice.
Lawson- Claims the problem is insurance. Does not want to do away with safety nets. Wants to give debit cards to low-income Americans to serve as a safety net. Claims government health care has too much over-head.
The nation is fixing to enter a second decade of war in Afghanistan. Is the nation on the right track in Afghanistan?
Price- Voted against Iraq because he wanted to keep a focus on Afghanistan. Combat operations in Iraq are done, but Afghanistan needs to see an orderly and responsible close. Agrees with Obama's time table for withdrawal next summer. Price re-iterates that the region must stay safe, but it can be accomplished by co-operation between the US and governments in the region.
Lawson- Afghanistan was an attempt to hunt down and punish Bin Laden. Afghanistan operations should be in the defense of American lives, not a nation-building exercise. Every dollar spent in Afghanistan is borrowed against our future. Anecdote of money paid to Afghan war lords to keep supply lines safe, with this money being used by the war lords to injure American soliders.
Price- Voted to tighten up the exit strategy for Afghanistan. Lots of things do need to be addressed in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but they must be addressed by Afghanistan and Pakistan themselves.
As our nation tries to emerge from economic downturn, what should the government do to encourage job creation and encourage economic growth. Has the stimulus worked?
Lawson- Stimulus has pushed us to insolvency. The economic crisis was created by too much debt. The government should ensure a level playing field, because the financial industry is a monopoly. Price voted to end Glass-steagall. Supports "fair tax".
Price- Although Lawson frets over federal deficit, his proposed policies will increase the debt. In the late 90's, Congress balanced the budget, only to have the Bush administration increase debt by unfunded tax cuts and medicare prescription drug benefits. Things need to be done to get out of the recession, and in the short term they cost money. Price wants to create a good business climate, and continue infrastructure, education, and research spending.
Lawson- Price just argued against spending he has approved over the last 22 years.
More than 70% of the government's farm subsidies go to the 10 largest businesses. Would you support cutting farm subsidies?
Price- Our district has seen the largest increase in farmers in NC over the past decade. Agriculture is an important driver of our economy. Price wishes to decrease subsidies, while keeping support of smaller farmers. This can be done by changing rules on food stamps, for example. Price has supported a farm incubator and done other things to help Triangle farmers.
Lawson- Wants to phase out all agricultural subsidies. Claims that the estate tax is the biggest threat to small farmers. Lawson is a proponent of ending the estate tax. Price voted in favor of Food Safety Modernization Act that regulates small farms just as strictly as large agribusiness.
Price- "Lawson needs to read the bill". The house bill Price voted for had an exemption for small farmers. Tainted food is still a concern in large-scale packing plants.
Projections show that 1 million residents will be added to the Triangle in the next decade. What works in Federal transportation spending and what does not?
Lawson- The triangle only gets 92 cents from every dollar it pays in transportation tax. Decisions about how best to get around should be made locally to meet local needs. He does not want Congress micro-managing transit management. Density is an important consideration, but capitalism and private property rights are the best way to manage transportation.
Price- Translation is in order. Lawson believes that any federal aid to transportation is unconstitutional. Lawson would not have voted for the Eisenhower Interstate System. Transportation funding in NC is not about greasing palms, but instead about critically evaluating all proposals. Supports high speed rail, with trains heading from Raleigh to Charlotte in 2 hours in the near future.
Lawson- Lawson is not who would declare what is constitutional, the Supreme Court would. All government funding is taken from someone else, so the focus should be on how much money should be sent to Washington and how much should stay for local decision making.
Immigration is a new battleground. Should immigration stay as it is, with qoutas, or should it be over-hauled?
Price- Labor markets need to be brought into line with current immigration policy. This will require adjustment of federal policy, and should consider the 11 million current undocumented workers that are working in our market. Not all can be deported, and those here should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine whether they are candidates for naturalization. Immigration laws need to be enforced both at and inside America's borders. As chair of Homeland Security Appropriations Committee, he has voted to increase Border Patrol funding. "You can not enforce your way out of this challenge, you need a comprehensive solution".
Lawson- Agrees that border security is a federal job, and it should be improved. Does not like the idea of 'case-by-case'. Thinks that everyone should be 'treated equally'. America must show respect to the 600,000 that have legally immigrated. 10% unemployment means we need more jobs, not more workers.
Price- Lawson is a good example of what is wrong with politics. Amnesty is a slogan, not a policy. People working and paying taxes in the US should be able to enter the naturalization line at the end of the line and go through the same process as new immigrants.
Audience Questions
With entitlements representing 57% of the Federal budget, what should be done to reduce entitlement spending or generate revenue to offset the cost?
Lawson- Medicare and Social Security are the two biggest entitlements. Lawson believes he can improve the safety net while reducing spending. He thinks healthcare is a good candidate for cost cutting. Believes America has been defaulting on Social Security for 20 years. "Social Security is a mathematical Ponzi scheme." The safety net should be conserved, and should be a safety net for those that did not save for retirement. The younger generation should be transitioned out of SS and personally-controlled investment accounts, in lieu of a guaranteed SS payment.
Price- The past 8 years have represented a big fall into debt. In the 90s, the budget was balanced, but politics was less partisan. Both parties must work together, and entitlements should be on the table. But so should appropriated spending and the tax code. Supports the deficit reduction commission. Wants to get back on the path of the 1990s, where several hundred million in debt was paid off. America must stand by the promises it made in Social Security. Treasury bonds are as good as gold.
Lawson- Gold is $1300 an ounce. The Federal Reserve is the 2nd largest holder of treasury bonds. Lawson is unhappy with the task of deficit reduction being given to an unelected committee.
Thoughts on off-shore drilling in the Atlantic
Price- The outer banks are a treacherous region, and no offshore drilling anywhere in the US should occur before we can ensure that drilling is safe. Lawson does not think that the Federal Government has any authority over off-shore drilling. Price thinks that due diligence is needed at both the state and federal level after the Gulf drilling disaster.
Lawson- Price voted for the $75 million oil drilling cap. The NC coast has more natural gas than oil, and natural gas should be utilized as a sustainable energy source.
Price- The liability cap was never enforced, and Price voted to raise the liability cap. BP is responsible, and should pay.
In view of the recent Citizens United decision, what new campaign finance laws are needed?
Lawson- Campaigns should be funded without limits, as long as there is disclosure as to who is funding them. The DISCLOSE act makes it harder for new political groups to compete with groups like the NRA or AARP.
Price- The Supreme Court's decision is atrocious. At the least, the money coming in to campaigns should be tracked. Price authored the "Stand by your Ad" act. He has tried to update it, but the filibuster in the Senate has stopped it. Can not believe that Lawson and his colleagues will not support disclosure. Until the law is changed, disclosure should be improved.
Lawson- The system is already dominated by special interests. The rules in place are there to protect incumbents. Most Americans know that political ads on TV are full of lies.
By 2013, the interest from the federal deficit will outgrow defense spending. How will you reduce the $3 trillion deficit?
Price- Youth will be the ones most affected by federal debt. The federal deficit is the hardest thing to reduce, but in the 1990s pay-as-you-go was the name of the game, and the budget was balanced. Congress knows how to balance the budget, and it can do it again. It is discouraging to see divisive politics get in the way. Everything must be on the table.
Lawson- Prefers to talk about the future instead of the past. Debt affects everyone, and will be the biggest problem facing future generations. There is not a lot that the federal government should do. America must deal with federal spending, with a focus first on entitlement spending. $80 billion a year is spent in Afghanistan. Pork, such as the stimulus and bailout should be cut.
Price- Price agress with Lawson more than Lawson thinks. Both parties need to come together to discuss tax issues, and everything must be on the table.
Technology is the biggest driver of our region. Where do you stand on federal research spending?
Lawson- R&D should be put back to the private sector. Research should be funded by the private sector, not by borrowing from China.
Price- Lawson wants no federal role in research. The NIH and NSF are the greatest competitive advantage America has. Skimping on both will be unilateral disarmament in the face of global economic challenges. No business in the Triangle would recommend cutting federal research spending. Research is the lifeblood of the Triangle. Entrepreneurship comes from research.
Lawson- Too much government spending goes to private businesses. Private investment is much harder now than it was years ago, and it is because of current financial reform policies.
Closing Statements
Lawson- New ideas are needed. Price has been in office for 22 years. The role of the federal government must be studied in every retrospect. Washington has a habit of trying to close the barn door after the horse is gone, and lobbyist influence has allowed this to continue. We are in tumultous times, and everyone should be treated equally.
Price- Although Lawson decries corporate malfeasance, Lawson thinks the federal government has no role in regulating offshore drilling and other issues. Price has lived in the Triangle for decades, and he loves the Triangle. The Triangle broke from a single-good economy and has diversified and created a good quality of life. There should be a focus on what has gotten us here, and what to do to improve quality of life. Instead of divisive politics, Congress should focus on creators of growth: Education, Research, Water and Air quality, etc.
I was just at the debate - good job with the live blogging. This does a very good job of encapsulating what was said at the debate. The venue was very crowded, and seemed to be in Lawson's favor.
Price and Lawson both do a good job of answering questions. But Lawson has a precise vision and articulated his points better.
IMO, Price did a lot of blaming all of today's problems on Bush, but takes credit for the accomplishments of the 90's. You can't have it both ways. If Bush gets the blame for the deficit, then Clinton gets the credit for the 90's. Or Congress gets the credit for the 90's and Congress gets the blame for our current financial problems.
So, thank you Bull City Rising for helping put on a well run, even-handed debate. I'll be headed to the voting booth in a couple of weeks to cast my vote for BJ Lawson.
Posted by: Rachel | October 08, 2010 at 09:26 PM
I went to the debate, but the venue was so tiny that a lot of us were left standing outside. Thanks for the blog post to encapsulate it for those of us who weren't allowed in.
Rachel makes a good point about how Price tries to split the credit for government decisions based on who was president at the time, not how he personally voted.
"BP is responsible, and should pay."
True. But if Price thinks that about BP, why didn't he think that about AT&T, which illegally spied on American citizens? Price voted to give the huge telecoms retroactive immunity, virtually ensuring that companies will continue to go along with illegal domestic spying programs in the future.
When you add these double standards to Price's lack of an economic vision, he's not the type of guy you can feel good casting a vote for.
Posted by: Gloria | October 08, 2010 at 10:34 PM
Thank you, Lawson lackeys, for your thoughtful position papers. Take notice, people! The republican ticket is the way to go for all you clear-thinking either-or types! And all you pirate party haters and hi-tech conspiracy theorists, Lawson is your man, too!
Now all we need is some thoughtful political analysis!
Posted by: R | October 08, 2010 at 11:48 PM
Thank you. It was a good debate and I only wish that there was more room for the folks standing outside.
Listening to Price answer questions felt like we were listening to an outsider or someone who didn't live here. He always took a long time answering questions, constantly went over the time limits and yet at the end never really gave us clear and believable answers?
Lawson on the other hand, connected with the audience very well. He made us feel like we were genuinely listening to someone who lives here and shared our concerns. Not only did Mr. Lawson apply common sense, but he clearly articulated intelligently all his answers much better than Mr. Price.
I think it is time for Mr. Price to step aside and enjoy retirement. BJ Lawson is absolutely more trust-worthy to represent us in North Carolina.
Posted by: Carmen | October 09, 2010 at 03:03 AM
Seriously, Lawson campaign staff. That guy is full of fluff! He sounds and looks good, but the substance behind his answers is nuts! He's to the right of Jesse Helms. Abolish the Dept. of Education? Pull out of the UN? Federal govt has no constitutional role in restricting offshore drilling? That's just crazy talk. I will grant that he does a really good job of making it sound like he's on your side, but you can put lipstick on a tea partier, but he's still a tea partier.
Posted by: Pablo | October 09, 2010 at 08:02 AM
I was also at the debate. My husband, who somewhat on the fence, had to step out because in the back where we were standing in the back, the various younger campaign workers for Lawson were pretty fucking rude. I know it's a heightened environment, but it cost them a chance at a vote.
Me, on the other hand, I was there to support Price. Plenty of stuff is a hot mess, but pulling out of transportation funding[1] and medical research funding is straight libertarian dreaming. Not to mention his incredibly smarmy position on reproductive rights[2].
And while this is always what happens with it's an incumbent, the nature of politics is that you HAVE to make concessions sometimes and it feels like much of the mess we are in is because of the rigidity and lack of compromise that seems to be our current political standard. It's really easy to pick apart a 22 year record when you have no record to stand on.
[1] How are you intending on getting to DC, Dr Lawson? Apparently not driving on the freeway.
[2] A doctor should really know better than to mealy mouth about emergency conception.
Posted by: Alicia | October 09, 2010 at 08:26 AM
I was at the debate. The turnout didn't represent the demographics of Durham, but it may very well represent the demographics of motivated voters in a mid-term. I've never been to a local debate before, but I wanted to see how Price was going to defend his votes for health care, cap and trade, the stimulus, and the bailouts. I didn't know a lot about Lawson other than he was a Ron Paul republican rather than a Rockefeller. Spending a Friday evening at a political debate indicates a lot of motivation on the part of the people that attended.
My impression of Price was that he was rather flustered at dealing with a hostile crowd familiar with his record -- something I suspect he hasn't seen much of in his very long career.
The comment "Treasury Bonds are as good as gold" was rather unfortunate. Taking credit for the balanced budget of the 90s and attacking the deficits of the 00s was unfortunate as well -- in the 90s the republicans controlled Congress, and the Democrats have been in charge for the giant growth in spending and the crash since 2006. By Price's assertion, the best combination is a republican congress and a democrat in the white house.
It's also pretty clear that Price hasn't read the bill for the Food Safety Modernization Act -- the exemption for small businesses really isn't much more than asking the FDA to be flexible. Buy your fresh vegetables from roadside stands while you still can if Price has his way.
Lawson was talking about basic philosophy instead of programs. Price attacks him for speaking with vague generalities, but Lawson seems to have the intellectual integrity to support the policies that follow from his philosophy. I was surprised that he was actually to the left of Price on Afghanistan. He's willing to transition social security into private accounts, but doesn't talk about how that would happen. He's willing to cut Medicare, but then says we need a safety net and doesn't describe how that will happen. He let Price get away with asserting that he wanted a 30% sales tax and didn't really pound home that the Fair Tax would eliminate the IRS and the income tax for good. Instead of saying that he wants to eliminate the Department of Education, he should have said something like "I want to spend more money on education by keeping our money right here in NC."
If anything, Lawson's arguments are very intellectual and he hasn't learned to speak in sound bytes that the media can grab onto. That just won't make sense to people whose idea of constitutionality is "Congress makes the laws."
Posted by: Greg | October 09, 2010 at 10:19 AM
@pablo - You might want to rethink your right/left spectrum for labeling people. Lawson appears to be a libertarian running as a republican, which means that you're not going to pigeon hole him easily. I doubt Jesse would have supported an early pullout from Afghanistan or ending the War on Drugs.
It's a sad time in America when the mainstream thinks it's crazy for a politician to stand up with a copy of the Constitution and ask how the Federal government has the power to do what it's doing. We're in the trouble we're in because so few people have actually read the constitution.
Posted by: Greg | October 09, 2010 at 10:32 AM
@Alicia - I think Dr. Lawson will be able to travel to Washington just fine on roads funded and built by the states of NC and VA. The real question is why we have to send our money to Washington so that they can make a bonfire with it, hand out special projects to buy votes in other states, and then send us back less than we provided, along with a huge list of conditions on how we get to spend our own money.
I'd really like to understand the thinking behind the idea that the government must fund medical research. Other businesses spend billions in R&D every year without any help from the government. The results of medical research can be quite profitable, so there's plenty of motive to do it. And before the government started taking most of what we earn in taxes it was actually possible to raise money for charities. What makes medical research different than nanotech, software, or materials research?
Frankly, if the politicians are going to be buying votes with our money I'd rather they did it right here. And if you're in favor of sending our representatives to Washington so they can bring back the pork for our research institutions here in the Triangle, then you might want to think about what has gotten us into the current mess.
Posted by: Greg | October 09, 2010 at 10:49 AM
I'm still trying to grok Lawson's platform. He doesn't really seem in line with the Republican party in a lot of cases (anti agricultural subsidies, pro fair tax, anti-war, etc). Just when I thought he might be more of a libertarian, he basically revealed that he was anti-immigration, and looking at his web site he seems like a protectionist (anti-NAFTA) to boot.
I'm having trouble figuring out what this guy really is. I really wish somebody would have asked some questions on personal liberty (war on drugs, gay marriage, etc), which aren't even mentioned at all on his campaign web site.
Posted by: JeremyT | October 09, 2010 at 02:25 PM
Wow the zombies are full in force. Good thing that they really don't represent Durham, and that Lawson is not going going to crack a 40% of the vote.
Lawson by the way is supported by Ron Paul so what we have here is another case of egotist rich person saying that we all be better if we do not participate and contribute in creating a better country.
Posted by: Cormoran | October 09, 2010 at 03:28 PM
It's pretty laughable that Lawson would stand in the middle of the Triangle, home to 4 research universities and RTI as well as the giants of corporate medical research, and suggest that NSF and NIH funding should be cut. Who does he think pays the salaries of his constituents?
Posted by: Elizabeth | October 09, 2010 at 04:41 PM
Astroturf?
Posted by: Natalie | October 09, 2010 at 09:36 PM
We are not better off than we were 2 years ago. We're not better off than we were 20 years ago. NC still has high unemployment. It took me with a master's degree more than a year to get a job and I'm not for a NC-based company. David Price has done diddly squat for us in the 4th district for the past 22 years. B.J. Lawson not only has the guts to sign a $1 million bonded pledge that if elected he won't serve more than 4 terms, but he has the guts to call a spade a spade and call out the government what it is - a sham. You liberals in la-la land with your cushy jobs at UNC have no clue what's really going on. David Price is scared, and he should be. B.J. kicked major tail last night. David Price continues to do what he does best - say nothing of substance. Time for Price to retire on his fat, taxpayer-funded pension!
Posted by: Barbara | October 09, 2010 at 09:47 PM
Lawson demonstrates how much of a fool he is when he called Social Security a Ponzi scheme. Seriously, people, that may be a nice sound bite for the anti-welfare nuts, but it's not even close to being factually true.
Posted by: dob | October 10, 2010 at 12:37 AM
Wow - did I stumble into a red state blog? Lawson is a nut. He doesn't beleive in government regulation of business - at all. No regulation of oil companies, banks, insurance, food safety, product safety - it's watch you back time with Lawson, cause everybody is on their own vs big business.
If you want the big multi-national corporations in complete charge of the US government, more job outsourcing to Asia, and no safety net for the poor, unemployed, or elderly, then Lawson is your man.
Re-elect David Price.
Posted by: Todd P | October 10, 2010 at 01:29 AM
Lawson will ruin the Triangle if his ideas were put in practice. No minimum wage, no medicare, no social security,no department of education, no department of transportation... If you want to live in Somalia why don't you move there?
Posted by: Cormoran | October 10, 2010 at 08:58 AM
@dob: whether or not it's worthwhile, Social Security essentially *is* a Ponzi scheme: you pay people who bought in before you, with the hope that new participants will do the same for you.
The whole system works fine, as long as a society's wealth generation is constantly increasing. That may have been a safe bet at one point, but it's very much questionable right now.
The goals of Social Security are laudable, but that doesn't change the fact that the way we fund it is incredibly dangerous.
Posted by: JeremyT | October 10, 2010 at 09:20 AM
@Cormoran - I see the Lawson supporters making arguments and the Price supporters resorting to ad hominem attacks. They make statements like "abolishing the dept of Education is crazy talk" without discussing why they think that would be a bad idea. They just call it crazy -- which is an unthinking response. So which side are the zombies on?
I think this election is going to be interesting. This district was designed to protect a democratic incumbent and Price has a huge fund raising advantage because of the giant amounts of lobbyist money coming into his campaign. RealClearPolitics.com still has NC4 listed as likely democratic, but there haven't been any polls other than the suspect one that had Lawson slightly ahead. But this year is very different. The level of motivation on the right is much higher than the left. If it's cold and rainy on Nov 2 the democrats are going to have problems even in NC4.
@dob - Would you please explain to us how Social Security is not a ponzi scheme? I think even David Price would agree that without reform it's going to run out of money. They've been paying the recipients for years with the money they take in from the payroll tax of present day workers -- the very definition of a ponzi scheme. The problem is that the workforce is aging and soon there won't be enough young workers to pay for the people drawing benefits. We can either make drastic reform or we can let it crash -- staying with the present system is not an option. Everyone should be very upset about this situation. The promise of social security was broken years ago. We're just playing out the hand now.
@Todd P - Lawson doesn't believe in the __Federal Government__ regulating business. He has the crazy notion that we should follow the Constitution and leave those sorts of things to the States.
The giant expansion of the federal government doesn't seem to be doing us much good in protecting us from evil corporations anyway. It just gives the giant corporations a single point of access to send their lobbying money to. Look at the very long list of lobbyists that have contributed to Price's campaign this year: http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/can_give/2009_H6NC04037 Ask yourself why those companies think this was a good investment? Is there something they want in return? You know they didn't spend that money without an ROI calculation. If the corporations you fear so much had to divide their attention across 50 states with a hundred or so legislators each wouldn't we all be a bit better off?
The most important service David Price provides to the Triangle is that if you want to vote for Nancy Pelosi, you don't have to move to San Francisco.
Posted by: Greg | October 10, 2010 at 09:24 AM
@JeremyT: You could not be more wrong. A Ponzi scheme by definition requires an exponentially increasing number of participants. Social Security, by distinct contrast, uses the funds provided by the current workers to pay the benefits of the currently retired. It absolutely does not require an expanding economy in order to function, it simply requires balancing the income and the expenditures.
Seriously, you can read all about the mathematics in any of the annual reports of the Social Security Trustees. It's really not very complicated. Contrary to the doom and gloom spread by professional liars and believed by folks like yourself, Social Security isn't in crisis. If nothing were changed, in 30-40 years the expenditures would begin to outpace income, but that's entirely due to the fact that the cap on social security income isn't indexed to inflation. If that cap were indexed, or indeed, eliminated entirely, the problem vanishes. If benefits are means-tested, the problem vanishes. If the retirement age were raised slightly - a solution I strongly oppose - the problem vanishes.
Posted by: dob | October 10, 2010 at 01:01 PM
@Greg: The percentage of GDP spent by the federal government has declined since the Bush administration. Care to enlighten us as to what giant expansion of the federal government to which you refer?
Posted by: dob | October 10, 2010 at 01:05 PM
@dob - Care to cite a source for that? Spending as a percent of GDP in 2008 was 37%. In 2010 it is 44%. Considering the slope of the spending curve, there's no end in sight if we continue to send big spenders to Washington. Notice the very sharp change in spending levels between the Bush and Obama administrations.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=2000_2010&view=1&expand=&units=p&fy=fy11&chart=F0-total&bar=0&stack=1&size=m&title=US%20Government%20Spending%20As%20Percent%20Of%20GDP&state=US&color=c&local=s
But I was really talking about the massive expansion we've seen over the last 80 years. We're double as a percentage of GDP, and we're almost at WWII spending levels.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1940_2010&view=1&expand=&units=p&fy=fy11&chart=F0-total&bar=0&stack=1&size=m&title=US%20Government%20Spending%20As%20Percent%20Of%20GDP&state=US&color=c&local=s
A ponzi scheme requires an increasing number of investors in order to keep going. They fall apart because that's impossible. Social Security has relied upon favorable demographics to continue and that's about to fall apart. In 1955 there were 9 workers per social security recipient. Today there are 3 and the recipients are living longer. http://perotcharts.com/2008/05/number-of-workers-per-social-security-beneficiary/
The last 5 Trustees reports have indicated that social security will hit a shortfall between 2037 and 2041 (that's 27 to 31 years, not 30-40) and will only be able to pay out 75% of obligations unless a change is made. Indexing to inflation would only work if inflation stays low -- but the current policies are designed to increase inflation. Means testing just turns social security into an income redistribution program instead of the insurance program it's supposed to be. Read about it for yourself at the SSA website: http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/solvency/index.html
Posted by: Greg | October 10, 2010 at 05:04 PM
How do folks like Greg distinguish a "Ponzi scheme" from any private-sector business that takes on accounts payable and other liabilities going forward on the assumption of receiving a certain revenue stream?
Here's one potential answer to the question: A Ponzi scheme inherently involves criminal fraud. Absent that distinguishing feature, whatever you're applying the label to is actually something else. Charles Ponzi and his emulators engaged in cons. They convinced people to invest in an enterprise, concealing from them the fact that the enterprise did not actually exist.
Posted by: Ray Gronberg | October 10, 2010 at 05:47 PM
Worth noting that Social Security was always designed, from day one, as a pay-as-you-go system. There was no artifice or myth to it. That was its design from the beginning, to be funded by tax dollars from today's workers to fund today's retirees.
We can increase the cap on taxable earnings or make a more progressive tax rate for Social Security payroll taxes and solve the problem whenever we wish.
FWIW, in NC last year we spent almost $71 in Social Security (non-SSI benefit) dollars for every $1 received in cash "welfare" aid, something that may be of interest to those who argue that the "few taxpayers" out there are somehow footing a bunch of non-working stiffs, an argument that plays out in the recesses of imagination more than in reality.
Of course, there's room in the marketplace of ideas to argue for abolishing Social Security and other safety net programs. To my mind, there's a sliver of the population whose wealth would inure them against the impact of such a change, thanks in part to disproportionate gains from the economic disruption of post-industrialization and open trade borders that has made the social safety net more needed than ever. And there are plenty of others who are not in good economic shape who are swayed by the arguments that the former group make. But I will be curious to see how those ideas fare in the 4th District.
...
As to the debate itself, my thanks to everyone who came out for an evening's spirited discussion. Lisa Sorg and I worked hard to ensure balanced questions, down to an even-handed selection of two right-leaning and two left-leaning questions from the audience for the debate.
My sense was that both candidates' supporters were slightly rowdy at times and brought up cheers, jeers, and zealous applause during their man's time and their opponent's. There is no doubt that the Lawson campaign was better organized on Fri. night for turnout, from seeing their supporters arriving earlier and carrying more media equipment than the Price side. I don't think it's fair to cast aspersions at one side or the other from Friday night.
Personally, I thought Dr. Lawson handled himself articulately and was a strong advocate for his beliefs last night. I disagree with many of his views, but I very much appreciate that compared to the embarrassments we're seeing in other districts, both he and Congressmen Price are running civilly-toned campaigns.
Posted by: Kevin Davis | October 10, 2010 at 06:18 PM
I was a respondent to Lawson's "poll". It managed, in 20 minutes, to tell me repeatedly that Lawson is a family man who loves the Constitution and Price is an out-of-touch liberal who votes with Nancy Pelosi all the time. And then asked me repeatedly what I thought of that and if it changed who I was going to vote for. That's not a poll, and any discussion of the "results" is laughable. The fact that, in spite of the "poll" being a smear campaign against Congressman Price, it still showed support for the Congressman and Lawson to be dead even suggests to me, as someone who heard all the questions, that Congressman Price continues to have substantial support in our district.
Lawson may be running a civilly-toned campaign in public, but behavior like push-polling is every bit as reprehensible as running Helms-style attack ads--there's just more room for plausible deniability that the candidate himself of course knew nothing about the push-poll nature of the poll his campaign commissioned.
Posted by: Elizabeth | October 11, 2010 at 07:09 AM
@Ray - the distinction is that in a Ponzi scheme you have to continue to add new investors in order for the numbers to work. Simple AP/AR management doesn't require that the company constantly increase the number of customers that it sells in order to cover its losses. Social Security worked fine when the ratio was 9-1. 3-1 not so much.
Posted by: Greg | October 11, 2010 at 08:15 AM
@Greg: Citing the ratio of workers to retirees at Social Security's inception is misleading, as the latter category was obviously significantly smaller than it would become as more workers who'd been paying in were eligible to retire.
The system works fine with a ratio of 3 workers to every retiree. The mathematics are, at as far as these things go, absurdly simple.
I will try to find the source for the study I cited on GDP.
Posted by: dob | October 11, 2010 at 11:37 AM
I have also been push-polled by the Lawson campaign or its supporters. I laughed at the questions because they were so absurd.
Social Security is not in trouble. It is the most successful social safety net in our country's history, keeping millions of elderly out of poverty and providing people dignity in their retirement years.
It is fully funded until 2037, and 75% funded after that. The simplest fix would be to raise the cap on earnings so the tax would apply to more earnings of high income people. A progressive fix would be to drop the cap entirely and establish a floor instead, exempting the first $20,000 or $40,000 of earnings from the tax entirely. That way, everyone gets the same tax break.
Republicans have alsways hated Social Security - because it works. That's why they are so anxious to tear it apart.
Posted by: Todd P | October 11, 2010 at 03:18 PM
@dob - Actually, the 9 worker number was from 1955, a generation after inception.
The numbers may work today, but the Trustees tell us that by 2017 we'll be down to 2.7:1 and we'll have to start dipping into the trust fund, which will take us to 2041 when we run out of money.
These aren't estimates by some right wing think tank. This is the report of the trustees of social security.
Even David Price doesn't claim that we don't need to do anything with Social Security. It's just a question of what.
Posted by: Greg | October 11, 2010 at 03:20 PM
Social Security is absolutely a Ponzi scheme, as is Medicare/caid and Obamacare. The size is many factors larger than Madoff.
Currently the Dallas Fed estimates the present value of our obligation at 117 trillion. That's $400k per person in the USA. There is no way, zero chance that every citizen can create that much productivity for the government. Lawson is correct - it is debt slavery.
We can deal with the debt issue like adults, or we can stick our heads in the sand, and wait for the USA to come crashing down just like Argentina (1970s), Germany (1920s), Greece, Spain, Italy (repeatedly). Governments do fail because of horrible fiscal responsibilty. I would rather not see us rip each other apart like they did in the Weimar Republic.
Posted by: Bill the Cat | October 11, 2010 at 03:55 PM
Debt slavery, at last we enter in recognizable racism of these teabaggers. Argentina did not crash, I suppose you mean economically, in the 1970's but they got a right wing military coup "to save the country". Germany did not collapse economically in the 20's from over expenditure by the state: They had to deal with the Great Depression, thankfully here we had FDR a great president that move us away from the conservative road to the precipice, plus war reparations. The economical and identity distress of Germany was used by a right wing group to claim power to grab power to "take their country back".
Posted by: Cormoran | October 11, 2010 at 05:55 PM
Clearly the federal government is doing no good for the Durham metro area, what with its largest employers being two public universities, a private university which receives massive NIH grants, a computer company that gets enormous government contracts, drug companies that rely heavily on NIH-funded research, the EPA and NIEHS, and a host of government contractors. All hail the model of private enterprise!
Posted by: Michael Bacon | October 11, 2010 at 06:14 PM
@Greg: I'm puzzled by your comment:
"Lawson doesn't believe in the __Federal Government__ regulating business. He has the crazy notion that we should follow the Constitution and leave those sorts of things to the States."
Doesn't the commerce clause in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution give Congress (i.e. "the Federal Government") the power to regulate business?
Posted by: Peggy | October 11, 2010 at 08:19 PM
Come cormorant....you can do better than name calling and accusing someone of racist motives. I agree 100% with these new level headed common sense approach posters.
Also, I find it funny that the event did not represent Durham because it was too many whites. The racism and focus on race by Durhamites is sickening. Have I seen anyone worry about representation of Durham when it is an overwhelmingly black event? Based on the blind support of Obama from the black community could lead one to believe that the color of the candidates skin may have something to do with lack of interest in the event. Progressives....for a group that loves to call everyone else a racist you sure do obsess on race a lot.
Posted by: Trinityrez | October 11, 2010 at 08:45 PM
@Peggy - no, the Constitution does not grant the Congress the right to regulate any business they see fit. It is empowered to regulate commerce among the several states. At the time of the signing, this had a very different meaning than is often asserted today. Here's a very interesting article that shows how Nancy Pelosi and many others in Washington misunderstand the Constitution with the assertion that Congress can do anything that has an effect on commerce: http://federalistblog.us/2006/08/busting_congress_interstate_commerce_myth.html
Even with the weakening of the Commerce Clause restraints that the Supreme Court has imposed in the last 80 years there are still areas that the Court will not let Congress delve into. Were Nancy's standard to be used, what _couldn't_ the Congress regulate?
Not to put words into Lawson's mouth, I imagine that he would also make the argument that regulation of business that takes place completely within a state is better left to the people of that state. Whether or not Congress has the power to formulate any law it desires is a different issue from whether they should.
Posted by: Greg | October 11, 2010 at 10:06 PM
@Cormoran - I think you're stepping dangerously close to tripping over Godwin's law. You might want to read some history -- the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei were National Socialists -- decidedly left wing, not right.
You know, it is possible to make reasoned arguments that disagree with Obama and not be a racist.
Posted by: Greg | October 11, 2010 at 10:13 PM
@michael - Should we feel proud that our representative has done a good job of bringing the pork back to us?
Posted by: Greg | October 11, 2010 at 10:15 PM
Neither Price nor his supporters can make any claim as to why we should keep him in office. Price has been in Washington for 22 years. He is one of the Seven Cardinals. It is time to send this Cardinal south.
Posted by: Dagny | October 12, 2010 at 07:24 AM
The Nazis were left wingers? Suuuuuuuuure for that reason they killed and sent to concentration camps many socialists and communists, busted unions, had all the German big companies donating to their party (like the Republicans and the chamber of commerce, even with foreign funds) To quote Hitler:
"The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight." (39)
The idea the the Nazis were leftist is not supported by any known historian, that is unless you consider Glenn Beck a Historian.
Posted by: Cormoran | October 12, 2010 at 07:45 AM
@Greg: Pork? Yes, cancer research, anti-AIDS drugs, Zantac, a government-established industrial park which has triggered hundreds of billions of dollars in private investment, the administration of hundreds of millions a year in international development projects, research in geographic information and satellite imagery, groundbreaking research on improving pregnancy outcomes, etc. All pork! Cut it all!
Seriously, here's what David Price does with his Appropriations subcommittee chair. He got a 400k earmark to subsidize the construction of the farmer's market pavilion. Pork! And what does it do? Provide the basic infrastructure so that the private marketplace can function more efficiently. Under a government roof, buyers and sellers more easily find each other, creating more choices for consumers and more work for local farmers. Pork! Yes, the best chops I've ever had come from Brinkley Farms. Mmmm, pork.
David Price voted against the Iraq war, against the budget-busting Bush tax cuts, led several investigations into waste, fraud, graft, and corruption in Homeland Security contracts, supports ending DADT, voted against the FISA warrantless wiretapping amendment, worked to make farm subsidies more sane and fairer to small farmers, voted to support better transportation infrastructure, cosponsored the Employee Free Choice Act, and supported the Waxman-Markey bill. David Price fits the 4th district, the most progressive district in the south, to a T.
And frankly, all this is rather academic. Even in a Republican wave year, Lawson has at best about a 15% chance of winning. Which is a good thing, because while a very nice guy, his view of constitutional law is nuts.
Posted by: Michael Bacon | October 12, 2010 at 10:11 AM