Social Security

It's good to hear Todd Akin continuing his work to make himself as unelectable as possible, doubling down on the disastrous privatization idea for Medicare and calling for the privatization of Social Security.

As Think Progress ably explains, privatizing Social Security would entail massive new costs to the government to pay for the shift to a new system, while leaving everyone but the very wealthiest seniors more vulnerable and with less of a safety net.

Ed Martin gets no respect. He is being outraised and outworked by Ann Wagner, and his campaign has turned into a literal and figurative joke.

Ed channels Rodney Dangerfield in the following video. Although, I don’t think he is joking when he says Social Security is actually “worse than a Ponzi Scheme.” Check it out:

You're not going to believe this, but Todd Akin went on the teevee and embarrassed himself again.

Akin told CSPAN viewers last week that Social Security is just "a tax," and that he doesn't like the program. "It’s really a tax, that’s all it is. Social Security is a tax...I don’t like it," he said. Here's an excerpt from Friday's Washington Journal:  

As ThinkProgress' Alex Seitz-Wald notes, Akin is really out to lunch here:

Despite Akin’s claim, Social Security is far more than a tax. After 75 years in existence, the program “remains one of the nation’s most successful, effective, and popular programs.” It has dramatically reduced elderly poverty — nearly half of seniors today would be in poverty without it — and it is the nation’s most effective tool at alleviating poverty among people with disabilities. It does all this while spending less than a penny per dollar on administrative costs. And despite conservatives’ fear mongering, Social Security is not going bankrupt any time soon.

Via TPMDC, a new report from the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities shows what would happen to Social Security benefits under the plan put forward by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI).  According to the report, "Ryan’s Social Security plan would cut benefits for future retirees significantly in two ways: (1) reducing benefits for the top 70 percent of wage earners through price-indexing the benefit formula, and (2) reducing benefits at all earnings levels by further increasing Social Security’s full retirement age."

Earlier this year, Ed Martin tweeted that Ryan is "THE man with THE plan," and promised supporters that he would fight to enact Ryan's proposals if elected to Congress.  Peter Kinder has also regularly tweeted support for Ryan's ideas.

In the South County Times, I see that Ed Martin has conveniently decided that he doesn't actually know anything about the the budget plan from Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan that he strongly endorsed in public forums earlier this year.

"Starting in 2005, my first year in Congress, President Bush proposed privatizing Social Security," said Carnahan. "I was passionately opposed to that, and thought it put Social Security funds at risk. And now that we've had the recession, and even after what happened to the stock market, the Republican leaders and Mr. Martin have signed on to this Paul Ryan (Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis.) plan, to propose privatizing Social Security and Medicare again."

Martin said if Ryan is calling for privatization, he would oppose his plan, which he said he hasn't yet read.

"If Ryan is calling for privatization?"  The details of of Ryan's plan are hardly a secret, and it's hard to find an article about his "Road Map for America's Future" that doesn't include a discussion of the Social Security proposal.  The goal of private Social Security accounts was outlined in Ryan's op-ed introducing the road map, it's easily found on his website describing the plan (though you di have to go to the trouble of clicking on the words "Social Security" to find out what he thinks!), etc. 

But now that it's October, Martin expects us to believe that he's completely unaware of one the central -- and most controversial -- provisions of the plan he says he would help support in Congress. Uh-huh. 

In Martin's preferred narrative, we're asked to instead believe that Martin endorsed an overhaul of federal spending on multiple occasions that he actually hasn't bothered to read or learn about.  That is such a better scenario! 

So let's give him the benefit of the doubt for a moment.  For Martin's edification --- and yours -- here's a summary of the proposed Medicare and Social Security changes ol' Eddie doesn't know anything about, as printed in the Washington Post:

To move us to surpluses, Ryan's budget proposes reforms that are nothing short of violent. Medicare is privatized. Seniors get a voucher to buy private insurance, and the voucher's growth is far slower than the expected growth of health-care costs. Medicaid is also privatized. The employer tax exclusion is fully eliminated, replaced by a tax credit that grows more slowly than medical costs. And beyond health care, Social Security gets guaranteed, private accounts that CBO says will actually cost more than the present arrangement, further underscoring how ancillary the program is to our budget problem.

No wonder Martin can't remember these details!   They're dramatic and would completely change Medicare and Social Security as we know it.   But not so dramatic that they deterred Martin from openly expressing support for the proposal on multiple occasions in he campaign. 

In April, Martin tweeted that Ryan is "THE man with THE plan!" And at a a town hall in March, Martin expressed strong support for the overarching goals of Ryan's 'Road Map."  

Watching the video, it's obvious that Martin is familiar with Ryan and at least the general outline of the plan.  He does give caveats about not knowing all of the specifics in the plan, but makes is clear that he understands Ryan's general proposals for Medicare and Social Security -- the most discussed and most controversial aspects of the plan.

It's clear to me that Martin wants credit from conservative Republicans for supporting a plan that they like, but doesn't want to be held accountable for anything that's actually in the plan, except it's stated goals of balancing the budget.  Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. 

In summary: If you're a candidate for Congress and don't want to be held accountable for taking strong positions in favor of a legislative proposal, don't endorse that proposal again and again.

Via the News-Leader and Fuse Joplin, I see that Billy Long gets all bent out of shape (i.e. "fed up") when he was asked to explain his publicly-stated positions about Social Security.  Here is the News-Leader's summary of the exchange between Long and Eckersley about Long's endorsement of the Conservative Congress' issue platform, which states that the group wants to "to dismantle the Department of Education and Social Security, by and through constructive reforms."

Eckersley then asked Long about Social Security, saying Long had filled out a questionnaire saying he wanted to "dismantle" the program.

Long did not deny doing so, but said he didn't know what Eckersley was talking about. Eckersley suggested that someone on Long's staff filled out the questionnaire.

"You should probably talk to them because it is a pretty serious deal," Eckersley said.

As you can see on the Eckersley campaign site and at the Conservative Congress website, Long  is listed as one of the candidates who "passed" on the issue of Social Security, and is one of the group's "approved" candidates.  No other candidates still on the ballot in Missouri are "approved" by the group, though Todd Akin and Sam Graves are also said to have "passed" on Social Security. 

I wish I could say I'm surprised that Billy Long doesn't know where he stands on the issue. 

We'll post video of the exchange as soon as its available. 

House Minority Leader John Boehner has "no idea" if House Republicans will try to privatize Social Security this year.

Appearing on on Larry King's show last night, St. Louis Tea Party activist Dana Loesch said she would "absolutely" support the end of Social Security benefits.

Loesch can say whatever she wants on the teevee and radio without any real consequences, but the Republican leaders who court her support have to actually explain their positions to voters.  

Wednesday, Lt. Governor Peter Kinder tweeted his support for Rep. Paul Ryan's (R-WI) "Roadmap for America's Future" as a superior alternative to Barack Obama's agenda for the country.

Among other things, the "Roadmap" endorsed by Kinder increases in the eligibility age for Social Security and moves citizens under under 55 into a private “Medicare certified plan” outside of the current Medicare system. The vice president for policy at AARP says Ryan's plan "would be a complete revolution and would fundamentally change the character of Medicare."

Also under the plan, federal deficit spending would continue until 2080.