Conway Leads 200+ Candidates In Demanding No Cuts To Social Security

Handed a plate full of difficult-to-sell -- if not generally unpopular -- legislative items, Democrats have chosen to campaign on process as much as policy, homing in on topics like the financing of campaigns as opposed to, say, health care or financial regulatory reform.

In the background has remained Social Security, a policy on which the party not only earns the broad trust of the voting public but also has the 2005 privatization debate to serve as political guidance. The actual question of whether or not to reform the entitlement program has been formally pushed till after the election, when the president's fiscal commission will offer its insights. But at various points during the past few months, Democratic leadership has tried to elevate the topic as a campaign issue. Monday is one of those points.

In a campaign spearheaded by Kentucky Senate candidate Jack Conway and organized with Social Security Works and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, more than 200 Democratic candidates for Congress have now formally signed a petition opposing any cuts or adjustments of Social Security benefits.

"With a Tea Party deep on the fringe, the way for Democrats to win in 2010 is to have a spine -- and go on offense," reads an email authored by Conway and sent out to PCCC members Monday morning. "That's why today, I am proud to announce with my friends at the Progressive Change Campaign Committee that over 200 congressional candidates and members of Congress are promising to oppose any cuts to Social Security.

"We're saying no privatization, no raising the retirement age, no messing with the best program for seniors and workers in American history -- and no mincing words about it."

There is a certain symbolism to the collaboration. Conway is not the type of doctrinaire liberal that the PCCC typically supports. On the debate over what to do with the expiring Bush tax cuts, for instance, he and the group find themselves on opposite ends.

But the strict notion of protecting Social Security has been one of the few galvanizing policy platforms for Democrats. And in addition to Conway, every non-incumbent Senate candidate except two -- Chris Coons (D-Del.) and Joe Sestak (D-Penn.) -- have signed the petition. The absence of those two names, a PCCC spokesman said, is owed to organizational, not philosophical difficulties.

The wonder, indeed, is that a campaign like the one Conway and the PCCC put together on Monday took so long to materialize (it has been building for weeks). Despite the continual insistence from Democratic leadership that Social Security would be a top topic -- and that a harsh spotlight would be placed Republican calls to privatize the program -- the screws have been only marginally tightened. More than that, Republicans who have called for privatization if not full bore elimination of Social Security have been allowed to either walk back their comments or escape them with marginal consequence.

The full list of signatories can be read at the PCCC's campaign-oriented website.

Comments

[terri autorino]

03:22 AM on 10/21/2010

If the argument is "disappointment" in Obama; remind voters that he HAS worked very hard for Americans since the day he took office..... and that he would have accomplished even more if not for the immature and UN-AMERICAN "Just Say No" Republican mentality.

President Obama is the most honorable and intelligent person we will ever have as our president.

OBAMA/BALDWIN 2012!!!

[MinerSam]

12:40 AM on 10/21/2010

When John Kerry warned people, during the campaign, that Mr Bush would privatize Social Security but is not telling them, The Republican controlled Media (Spun spining moronic
talking heades) movcked Kerry. Then sure as night following day as soon as Mr Bush was
in Came the Pounce.

The Tea Party == The Republican Party == Gas & Oil Party of fiction, brainwashing, Propaganda and Lies. Once again on their agenda.

[oldngrumpy]

01:29 PM on 10/19/2010

I believe that HP has numbered it's days as a venue for meaningful political discussion with it's "badges". Posts that don't violate the TOS disappear because of unpopular ideas that someone with a badge arbitrarily decides others shouldn't read and those who spout undsubstantiated "facts (lies)" are given pundit status because of the large number of opposing opinions they generate. The experience of discussing ideas here has been seriously degraded.

[lovbug]

12:50 PM on 10/19/2010

Paul Conway is smart and he's easy on the eyes...a winning combination! I will follow him.

[lovbug]

12:51 PM on 10/19/2010

I meant to say Jack Conway...Ooops!

[gra8whit]

01:20 PM on 10/19/2010

As a Democrat with a spine and a fighting spirit, I like him. As for a potential to fall of the rails like Rep. Alan Grayson, he gives me some pause. In the end, I'd vote for him on the issues. Watch out for the "easy on the eyes" appeal. That's why Sarah Palin and Christine O'Donnell are so popular.

[lovbug]

07:42 PM on 10/19/2010

I don't think either Sarah Palin or O'Donnell is attractive. Women can wear makeup and look attractive. To this day, it's hard to see what Sarah Palin really looks like with those bangs in her face and those eyeglasses. O'Donnell has pretty teeth, but I don't find her attractive.

[Pacifist2]

12:45 PM on 10/19/2010

Since its inception the President's Deficit Commission has focused on cutting Social Security. Simpson, Rivlin, Bowles are all SS cutters from way back. You need to get your representative to pledge to fight these folks when they give their recommendations in December. After the election is TOO late to pledge not to cut SS and not to raise the retirement age. SS is separate from the federal budget and is solvent until 2037 when benefits would have to be reduced. If they eliminate the FICA cap on income subject to The SS tax, the SS fund would regain solvency for the foreseeable future.

[WaveRhydr]

10:51 AM on 10/19/2010

"The Obergruppenführer of Ohio" and "The Fascist of Fairbanks" have to be tickled that "The Aqua Buddhas Messenger on Earth" rand paul had this break right now.

[Chip W]

10:33 AM on 10/19/2010

Leave Social Security alone. And Medicare. Lower taxes.
And keep pretending that nothing costs money.

[TeaLady005]

09:45 AM on 10/19/2010

Previous posters speak the truth!

There is NO money in the Social Security Trust Fund! Politicians have been stealing the money for decades to offset the deficit and to be used in the general operating fund. The only thing in the so called "Trust" are a bunch of worthless IOU's in the form of bonds.

As of this year the SS fund is paying OUT more than it is taking IN,,and the problem will only get worse each year. The ponzi scheme is set to come crashing down.

Our dollar currency has lost 8% of it's value since August,,and gold is up 30% from one year ago. It doesn't take an investment genius to see where we are headed.

[oldngrumpy]

01:44 PM on 10/19/2010

Oh ye of little knowledge.

The "worthless IOUs" you disparage so offhandedly are the highest rated Treasury Bonds in existence. The US has never missed or discounted a payment on it's bonds and the world views them as being more stable than any currency for trade. They are not an instrument that can be "called in" as so many think. They have maturity dates and presenting them prior to that date seriously erodes their facia value. Your "money under the mattress" thinking only shows how unqualified you are to be so opinionated, but sadly, your vote counts the same as anyone else's in our democratic system.

Our dollar is traded continually and it is often devalued to strengthen our export position. Gold is a commodity that is finite. Using such a commodity as the sole base of our economy discounts America's strengths and abilities. Should we ever shift back into a commodity based economy we should at least trade in something we have in abundance and is actually useful.

[Peter Mazzoni]

06:37 AM on 10/19/2010

200 clueless liberals who think there is a social security trust fund. They need some basic economic lessons. Let's say you retire at 66 this year. Social Security would have to cash in about $3,400 of its trust fund Treasury securities each month to get the money to paid out to the person who is 66. The Treasury would have to borrow $3,400 from investors mostly Communist China to get the money to pay Social Security. So no matter how many liberals say Soc Sec is a good thing, no matter you justify it Obama has to borrow from investors to pay soc security checks. CBO reported soc sec is running at a negative cash flow.

So in reality the Soc Sec trust fund has no economic value. Then don't give me this BS that the Geithner by putting bonds in the trust fund will make it last for ages because that is not true. Because the bonds not being put into social security are just IOUS but the government needs cash to pay its bills.

The redemption of trust fund bonds and interest paid on those bonds give Geithner and Obama no new net income so they are stuck a having to use increased taxation, reductions in other government spending, or additional borrowing to cover both interest and redemption of the Social Security trust fund.

Welcome to Social Security, just think when you cash the checks you are getting funds from Communist China bought on the open market.

[ConsensusReality]

09:32 AM on 10/19/2010

*yawn*

[DUSAA-1775]

10:01 AM on 10/19/2010

really?? Some one attempts to explain the SS trust fund to you and it is just so confusing to you that all you can do with your brain is yawn??
How sad for you

[gra8whit]

01:17 PM on 10/19/2010

We have to tax appropriately. In fact, I think the people who benefited the most during the last 10 years should pay more in taxes. Trust me, they can afford it. We wouldn't have to borrow so much, if at all, from China. We may have to increase the payroll tax, or increase the income level at which it is collected. But your "throw the baby out with the bath water" approach is unnecessary. Also, your characterization of Social Security recipients as being culpable for indebting us to the Chinese is unfair and probably inaccurate in light of the fact that they had their pay deducted for 43 - 45 years in exchange for the promise that they would not have to live in abject poverty in their final years. Remember, they paid for this promise over 4 decades. Besides that, what is your alternative?

[Peter Mazzoni]

12:29 AM on 10/20/2010

It is true since the money these people put into soc sec is a fraud on a grand scale. The government has to borrow from China or rob in the form of higher taxation to pay the people on soc sec today. Why is it hard to understand ?

[SteveDenver]

12:44 AM on 10/19/2010

It would have been nice if Democrats had gelled this message A MONTH AGO and rallied their support for middle-class tax cuts BEFORE THEY RECESSED. C'mon Dem's, don't you need a few extra votes for supporting people over corporations?

[sheila]

12:24 AM on 10/19/2010

man, i feel so shallow right now. all the comments are heartfelt and intelligent and i just keep thinking "yow. seriously. yow." and maybe not entirely about social security benefits. am i wrong, looking at that photo, to want to see this guy instead of rand paul babbling on TV?

ok, sorry to interrupt. back to witty, sincere dialogue...

[outtaluck]

12:11 AM on 10/19/2010

Social Security is a more important item than even some of the candidates realize, why? A relative of mine along with several hundred workers at "White Swan" distributor sold or I would say strategically taken over another "Big" and uncompassionate Corporation and these people pensions of whom had been paying in for years"Vanished" without a trace. All these people along with the relative (cousin) now has ONLY THEIR SOCIAL SECURITY to SURVIVE ON. This unconsciencable practice should never occur, bit this crimanal act has been seemingly overlooked repeatedly amount "Larger than some governments and that is ONE reason we should be ashamed cursing the French. at the very least they can look forward to the Autumn of their without FEAR of having to work during these years. Americans BETTER FEAR if the perputrators of rewarding war profiteering, The Americans that I KNOW, CANNOT AFFORD to take that chance, BELIEVE ME OR BE STUPID!!, they'll privatize SOCIAL SECURITY and the AMERICAN CITIZENS who put their trust(?) in voting for known LIARS, these Republicans, they TOO will see what little money Social Security provides WILL VANISH along with my cousin's pension. Don't count on any rich uncle if I were you, if he is a Republi-con, he will avoid you like the plauge. And if you haven't heard of ENRON, I suggest you should get out more.

[Peter Mazzoni]

06:10 AM on 10/19/2010

And when Soc Sec is broke then what will you do? Cry then? Get up later,then now?

[Tommygun264]

06:42 AM on 10/19/2010

If absolutely nothing is done (which is highly unlikely) Social Security will be 100% solvent through 2037. Currently, people earning more than $89,000.00 in annual salary pay no Social Security withholding on that income in excess of $89,000.00; while Americans earning salaries of $89,000.00 and under pay Social Security withholdsing on 100% of their salaries. If the $89,000.00 cap were abolished, not only would Social Security be 100% solvent in perpetuity, but the Social Security withholding could be cut in half with everyone paying just 3% instead of 6%.

[oldngrumpy]

02:11 PM on 10/19/2010

I lost two different "company" pensions in just the manner you described over my 46 years of working. People who think they are secure have a way of being smug and uncaring about others. The Republican shills for Wall St are trying to scare younger Americans into thinking they won't have something they paid for available to them when they need it. One thing for sure; elect the Republicans and you can be sure it won't be there. Wall St will nibble it away in fees and overhead.

You have to hand it to the French when it comes to citizen solidarity. Those in the streets protesting an increase in retirement age (60 to 62 for full retirement) are mostly young people. I wish the youth here were as engaged in the future of their country.

[Albeesandbox]

11:55 PM on 10/18/2010

You know what I think? I think they can take their $250 and shove it where the sun don't shine! What is the difference whether they give it to Seniors in one lump sum, or add it to their monthly Social Security checks? They owe us alot more than $250 since we were not given an increase last year. Take the housing market out of the equation, and then tell me the cost of living hasn't skyrocketed. Food, medicine, medical expenses, and utilities have all gone up. How much you want to bet that Congress will vote themselves a nice increase next time around though.

[jozie]

11:57 PM on 10/18/2010

just remember it was the GOP that took all of the real cost of living factors out of the COLA equation.

[kilchis]

02:41 AM on 10/19/2010

Congress is made up of Democrats,Independents and Republicans,there's no "they" about it. Ask yourself which party came up with social security in the first place and who's been protecting it and defending it all along. And who has tried and is trying to "privatize",that is gamble it on the stock market. Politicians on both sides can be unsavory to say the least,but who's on our side?

[gypsysailor]

10:53 PM on 10/18/2010

Now was that so hard to show a little spine? Dems have so many ways to pounce on the GOP and the teaparty they seem confused by which witch is which. Every now and then a little spark of light shines from the smoldering pile of wet leaves and leaves me with a ray of hope for the country.

[missouriwatcher]

10:41 PM on 10/18/2010

Any politician(s) seeking to in any way harm or dismantle Social Security would not only be seeking to end political career(s), but might well have to flee masses of torch-wielding, pitchfork-toting recipients. I can guarantee Social Security recipients are not happy with the payment freezes we have now; if you really want to raise their ire, start talking reductions in payments or ending Social Security, altogether.