I'm thrilled at Luger's loss
By Neal Boortz
Today I better understand the people of Indiana and there decision to send Republican Senator Richard Luger packing in Tuesday’s primary. Luger has never been a particular focus of mine, but early this week I did learn two things about this 36-year Republican Senator:
- He refused to sign the “Taxpayer Protection Pledge” saying that he would not vote to raise taxes on individuals or businesses; and,
- He was the ONLY GOP Senator who did not stand up on the floor of the U.S. Senate to speak out against ObamaCare.
Now I’ve learned something more about Luger. Like so many more in Washington, both Democrats and Republicans, Luger is more concerned about keeping his position of power and prestige than he is about preserving this country and our economy for our children, grandchildren and future generations. This past weekend Luger became desperate. He pulled out a campaign ad that is most often used by Democrats … a campaign ploy that Democrats have used every single election since 1952. He ran an ad showing a lovely grandma. The TV ad told you that if you voted for Luger’s opponent he would ... you guessed it … take your Social Security away!
The failure and collapse of Social Security is the most predictable disaster this country has ever faced. It’s as certain as the next sunset --- yet these power-mad Washington politicians just can’t bring themselves to do anything about it. Every DC politician knows that as soon as they suggest any reforms with Social Security some political enemy is going to get out there and frighten insecure wizened citizens with tales of financial disaster and tasty dog food.
Good riddance Dick ….. Luger.
== == == ==
RE: Social Security – In 1996, then Congressman Mark Sanford (former SC Gov. and long before he discovered the “Appalachian Trail”) submitted a bill that he coauthored with retired Chilean Finance Minister José Piñera that would have mandated private ownership of Social Security accounts for workers under 35 years old. Sanford’s proposal would have directed 2/3s of the 13.65% FICA payment into the worker’s own account and provide them with a menu of mutual fund choices similar to the “Thrift Savings Plan” that Federal Employees now have. The remaining 1/3 of their FICA payment would continue to fund the existing Ponzi system that provides payments to existing Social Security beneficiaries of our now deficit laden system. Boortz is correct in that the problem we are having today, were known long in advance, and Sanford’s proposal was specifically blocked by both RINO and Democrat “leadership” in congress. - Adakin
See Votes by State
News & Politics