Rick Santorum had a Letter-to-the-Editor published today.

I'm glad to see Rick Santorum has time to write letters to the editor with all the time he's spent lately flying to Florida to support Terri Schiavo attend fundraisers.  

Anyway, he was responding to a letter published from a fellow member of the grassroot progressive group VoteBluePA, and I just had to respond to it on our blog Little Blog Blue.

Santorum's letter and my repsonses after the jump, along with a picture that needs to be made into billboards across Pennsylvania.

Today's Patriot-News (still no PennLive.com link) published a letter from our beloved Junior Senator in which he responds to a letter from Tom Hiller.

Let's see where Mr. Santorum goes wrong .  (Although I probably should let Tom issue the rebuttal.)

As Tom Hiller of Camp Hill (Letters, April 10) references, the Social Security Trust Fund is an accounting mechanism and, contrary to popular belief contains no real assets.

No real assets?   U.S. Treasury Bonds backed by "the full faith and credit of the United States of America" aren't real assets?  

For years, Social Security collected more in payroll taxes than it paid out in benefits, and the surpluses were spent on other government programs, such as education and defense.  In exchange, Social Security received specially issues Treasury bonds in the form of IOUs.

This is new language Republicans have started using, along the lines of "personal accounts" instead of "private accounts" and "death tax" instead of "estate tax".   They are trying to recast the Social Security Trust Fund as "IOUs".   President Bush stated on April 5th that "There is no trust fund -- just IOUs."   Just IOUs?   Again, we're talking about U.S. Treasury Bonds backed by "the full faith and credit of the United States of America".   I would love to see Bush tell our foreign creditors that the Treasury Bonds they hold are "just IOUs".   Is he implying that the United States will honor bonds held by China and Japan, but will not honor the bonds held in trust for millions of retired Americans?

Furthermore, why were the Social Security surpluses spent on general funds?   I seem to recall Republicans ridiculing Al Gore in 2000 for proposing to put these surpluses in a "lockbox".  

Falling birthrates, increasing life expectancies, and the retirement of the Baby Boomers has created a situation in which there will not be enough workers to support retirees, and our system will not be able to afford to pay full, or even nearly full benefits to our children and grandchildren without reform.

If we do nothing with Social Security, it is projected that we can pay out full benefits until 2042.  Note that this date has continually moved out.  In 1996, it was 2030.  In 2000, it was 2038.  Indeed, Social Security may be self-repairing.  But even sticking with the projections of today, over 70% of projected benefits can be paid out after 2042.   Because Social Security benefit increases are pegged to the Average Wage Index, 70% of benefits in 2042 is still more than the full benefits of today in constant dollars!

In just 12 years Social Security will begin to pay more in benefits than it collects in payroll taxes, and the IOUs will have to be redeemed.  Cashing-in these IOUs will create significant cash-flow problems.

And why will we have these significant cash-flow problems?   Under Bill Clinton, America's fiscal house was in order, and we were running record surpluses.  Under George Bush and the Republican Congress's reckless fiscal policies, we have had record deficits.  Indeed, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities:  "The tax cuts and the prescription drug bill were the President's two principal domestic priorities during his first term.  Together, these policies will cost at least five times as much over the next 75 years as the Social Security shortfall (if the tax cuts are made permanent).  In other words, the President's domestic policy initiatives will have resulted in fiscal problems much larger than the problem that he now says he wants to address."

Why do we have a cash-flow problem?   Because of the borrow-and-spend Republicans like Rick Santorum.

If we wait the only solution will be drastically higher taxes, massive new borrowing, or sudden and severe cuts in benefits or other government programs.  Alternatively, we can establish voluntary personal retirement accounts now and lessen the need for painful alternatives down the road.

Private accounts do nothing to address any potential Social Security shortfall.   Indeed, all they do is make the problem much worse by taking trillions of dollars out of the program.

Mr. Hiller is concerned about the costs associated with establishing voluntary PRAs, but a much smaller amount of money would need to be borrowed now to establish PRAs than in the future if we do nothing.   Moreover, establishing PRAs now will allow interest to compound over time and offer a substantially greater rate of return, a rate that is more than our children and grandchildren can expect from today's system.

I repeat: Private accounts do nothing to address any potential Social Security shortfall.   Indeed, all they do is make the problem much worse by taking trillions of dollars out of the program.

Social Security is on a collision course, and we must work now to ensure that Social Security remains a program future generations can depend on.

The only collision course Social Security is on is the one with Republicans who, for the last 70 years, have sought to destroy Social Security.   Forgive me if doubt Senator Santorum's sincerity in seeking to save Social Security.  (Say that 3 times fast!)

U.S. Sen. RICK SANTORUM
R-PA, Washington

I thought he represented Virginia?   Anyway, in conclusion: