September 8 2011
I had misgivings about comments made by both Govs. Romney and Perry; but Romney's resolute commitment to Social Security reinforced what appears to be the leading problem for the Massachusetts governor - he doesn't exhibit an intuitive commitment to limited government.
I was listening closely for how the candidates might speak to women, and his comment that Social Security is "working for millions of Americans," suggested he hadn't thought much about women at all.
In addition to the fact that Social Security is a disingenuous, opaque, government-mandated "Ponzi scheme" that is a serious financial burden on the country, it is also extremely discriminatory against women (who, last I checked, make up "millions of Americans."), not to mention minorities and young people. The 76-year-old program was designed to fit a 1935 family in which a husband was the sole breadwinner. Three-quarters of a century later it has remained largely static and fails to reflect either the changing role of women or the face of the American family.
Not only did Romney fail to mention how women are unfairly penalized by the program, but also he implied we need more of the same wealth distribution rather than a retirement plan that gives women control over their savings.
For that: Romney 0, Perry 1.