When people ask me, whose fault is it? Whose fault is it that Medicare is broken, out of money, that Social Security is broken, out of money? And I say, look, it's not Republicans' fault, it's not Democrats' fault, it's your grandparents' fault for having too many damn kids...
After the war we had all of these kids, Baby Boomers. Now we're having smaller families. We used to have 16 workers for one retiree, now you have three workers for one retiree.
It's not working. I have a bill to fix Medicare. I've a bill to fix Social Security. For both of them you have to gradually raise the age. If you're not willing to do that, nobody wants to do it, but if you're not willing to gradually raise the age, you're not serious about fixing either one of them.
This is an absolutely absurd comment by Rand. No private sector insurance company ever runs into problems because the "grandparents had too many kids."
In the private sector, money put into a savings program is actually saved. The money isn't spent, the way the government has spent the Social Security money it has taken in, Chris Christie made this clear during the debate last night.
This was Rand, once again, muddying a very clear issue where the government is at fault and making it sound like some kind of technical issue.
But Rand didn't stop there in his outraeous commentary. In mainstream technocratic style, he went on to recommend a "solution" that benefits should be cut (by raising the social security age) to all the hardworking people who were forced into the Social Security scam in the first place. This was justifiably met with groans from those in attendance at the debate.
And it should be noted that while Rand wants to see a cutback in Social Security benefits to the elderly, he has called for an increase in the defense budget.
Contrast this with the answer his father gave during a 2011 presidential debate:
Well, I agree that Social Security is broke. We spent all the money and it's on its last legs unless we do something. One bill that I had in congress never got passed was to prevent the congress from spending any of that money on the wars and all the nonsense that we do around the world.
Now the other thing that I would like to see done is a transition. I think it's terrible that the Social Security system is in the -- the problems it has, but if people wouldn't have spent the money we would be OK.
Now, what I would like to do is to allow all the young people to get out of Social Security and go on their own.Notice the difference here. Ron Paul recognizes the problem but does not want to solve the problem on the backs of seniors who paid into Social Security. His solution, "Let's cut back on the spending of military adventures" and use the money toward making SS payments, is much more sound. Further, he advances his idea by calling for the young to have the opportunity to opt out of SS, rather than Rand's approach of trying to fix the system in a way that screws current seniors.
Bottom line: Rand's view is that of a typical government technocrat who wants to fix the current system and keep the coercive system up and running. Specifically, with a focus on keeping it in place by abusing the elderly. There is no focus on shrinking government. His father's plan is focused on shrinking government, including less in the way of military adventures and an out from the Social Security system for youth, while recognizing an implied promise to the elderly.
Rand's father's solution is moving in the direction of liberty, Rand's solution is about maintaining a grand government structure, seniors be damned.