The Candidates' Debate

For a fine concise overview of last night's GOP presidential candidates' debate check out Michael Barone's piece at The Washington Examiner. He evaluates not only the candidates' performance but also that of the moderators, particularly Brian Williams, who sounded as though his questions were written for him by the Obama campaign.

Some of the folks at MSNBC that I've heard today seem to have been scandalized by Rick Perry referring to Social Security as a Ponzi scheme, but I have yet to hear anyone explain why he's wrong. The only criticism I've heard anyone make that addressed the appropriateness of his characterization was by someone on the radio who pointed out that it's actually worse than a Ponzi scheme for three reasons:

• In a Ponzi scheme participation is voluntary, in SS it's mandatory.
• In a Ponzi scheme when the money runs out the scheme collapses, in SS the government just raises your taxes.
• In a Ponzi scheme all investor contributions go to providing benefits for other investors, whereas in SS contributions go to support a massive bureaucracy and for other governmental expenses.

Anyway, despite the two moderators' attempts to trivialize the debate and to shield Mr. Obama from criticism, it was clear that everyone on that stage is more qualified to serve as president than was candidate Obama.