CHRIS CHRISTIES vs. JOHN 3:16

“Well, 
that second part of the 

sentence is really important.”
~(Chris Christie)~

I reminded Christie that four years ago, when he was on top of the political world, Republican contributors had urged him to run. Did he ever think back to those days and wonder if, you know, he kind of blew it?

“Yeah, no,” Christie said, shaking his head. “’Cause I wasn’t ready. And in the end, remember something: Everything that everybody said back in 2011 about me running in 2012 was all theoretical. It was all based on the inherent assumption of ‘He’ll do well if he performs well.’

“Well, that second part of the sentence is really important,” he said. “The only way you’re going to perform well is if you believe in your heart that you’re ready to be president. And I didn’t. And so there was no way I would have won in 2012. I wouldn’t have, because I wasn’t ready.”

I asked if he felt ready now.

“Yes,” Christie answered, without a nanosecond’s hesitation. 

And so Tuesday in New Hampshire, Christie will reignite a crucial but divisive debate in American politics, unveiling a surprisingly detailed plan to remake the entitlement programs that account for more than half of federal spending now (and growing). As he did in New Jersey during those first, heady years of his governorship, Christie is taking on a longer-term problem that candidates in either party have historically tried to ignore, mainly because it entails nothing but bad news and thankless choices. 

It’s an odd time to talk about entitlements. 

 Chris Christie bets on bold

You will often hear politicians (not to mention interest groups) refer to Social Security, as established by Franklin Roosevelt, as a “social insurance” program. But of course that’s really a misnomer. Think of it this way: If you buy fire insurance, and your house never burns down, does the company show up on your doorstep after 30 years and hand you a check for twice the value of the house?

Social Security is, by any real definition, an entitlement, in the sense that you are entitled to get your money back — and then some — no matter how rich or poor you ultimately become.

What Christie is proposing is that Americans agree to restructure Social Security, 80 years after it was first enacted, to make it exactly what its staunchest defenders have always claimed it is: an actual insurance policy. If you need the money, you get it back. If you don’t, you don’t — or at least not the whole amount.

But Christie’s argument goes beyond solvency. He takes the position that whether or not you can sustain these programs, a society just can’t thrive when it’s spending more than half its income on programs for the elderly, while investing almost nothing in its next generation.