Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Bank Slate
Betsy Devine
birch, finch, beech
Democracy for NH
Live Free or Die
Mike Caulfield
Miscellany Blue
Granite State Progress
Seacoast for Change
Still No Going Back
Susan the Bruce
Tomorrow's Progressives
Politicos & Punditry
The Burt Cohen Show
John Gregg
Krauss
Landrigan
Lawson
Pindell
Primary Monitor
Primary Wire
Scala
Schoenberg
Spiliotes
Welch
Campaigns, Et Alia.
Paul Hodes
Carol Shea-Porter
Ann McLane Kuster
John Lynch
Jennifer Daler
ActBlue Hampshire
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC
National
Balloon Juice
billmon
Congress Matters
DailyKos
Digby
Hold Fast
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
The Next Hurrah
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo
50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
(My own dad died when I was seven and Social Security helped our family through. I put some of Karen's story below the fold - but I resisted retitling this "My American Story." - promoted by elwood)
A few weeks ago, I was asked by the Shaheen campaign to fill in for Governor Shaheen when she could not make it to an event with the Lebanon Rotary. I shared with them my Democratic story...
"Thank you so much for having me here today. I'm sorry that Governor Shaheen couldn't make it, and I know that she is too, but I am delighted to have the opportunity to spend some more time with the Lebanon Rotary again.
I'd like to share a bit of my story with you today and tell you why, on November 4th, I'll be voting for the Democratic ticket. I do have the privilege and honor of serving as the Mayor of the great City of Lebanon, but I'd like to make it clear that I am here today on a partisan mission and am not speaking for the City or my colleagues on the City Council. This is my personal story and my personal perspective. It is a tale of people and of government programs that made a difference in my life.
The story begins with a young woman in college at Saint Lawrence University in upstate New York who went on a study abroad program to France. My father, the Frenchman in this story, told me once that he and his friends always looked forward to the fall when a new group of young American women would come from Saint Lawrence...
Republicans often accuse Democrats of trying to scare seniors about GOP plans for Medicare and Social Security. However, Democrats' warnings are rooted in reality. Republicans have tried to undermine these critical social insurance plans for years. Unfortunately, McCain and Palin are no different.
Take Medicare. The non-partisan Tax Policy Center estimates that McCain's health plan would cost $1.3 trillion over ten years. To pay for this, Senator McCain has proposed some minor changes in Medicare; however, no expert believes these can achieve the savings needed to finance the McCain-Palin health plan. The Wall Street Journal has reported that McCain will pay for his plan by making major cuts in Medicare
and Medicaid (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122315505846605217.html).
Although the McCain campaign has denied this story, he has not explained where he will find the money. Senator McCain is also likely to support Republican efforts to undermine fee-for-service Medicare and replace it with HMOs. He revealed his true attitude towards Medicare this past summer, when he skipped critical votes on a bill that benefitted "doctors and patients at the expense of overpaid private health plans" (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/05/opinion/05sat2.html?_r=1&oref=slogin).
As for Social Security, Senator McCain supports privatization. Although Republicans have said this would not impact current beneficiaries or those near retirement, seniors should worry about how it would affect their children and grandchildren.
Where will we find the trillions of dollars needed to create the private investment accounts? These would need either to be borrowed from general revenues, which of course would explode the deficit, or taken from funds needed for future retirees, requiring deep cuts in benefits.
Republicans believe the private accounts will provide enough to make up the difference. Unfortunately, we have learned the hard way that markets do not go up forever and can crash with little warning. Moreover, recoveries do not always happen quickly. It took more than two decades for stock prices to surpass their peak in 1929. It may be true that stocks pay in the long run, but we live in the short run, on a day-to-day basis. We can ill afford to gamble with Social Security, which, for most of us, is our retirement safety net.
In contrast with John McCain, Barack Obama opposes privatization and any effort to cuts benefits or raise the retirement age. Seniors should reject McCain-Palin and vote for Obama on November 4.
In 2005, Newt Gingrich described John Sununu's Social Security plan as perhaps
the most sweeping, visionary, breakthrough legislation to help enrich working people in my lifetime
(http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040819/REPOSITORY/408190330). According to Gingrich, the Ryan-Sununu plan offers the best of all worlds: it requires no benefit cuts or tax increases and would give us the private accounts so beloved by conservatives. In addition, it would close the shortfall. Who could ask for anything more? Jennifer Horn seems to have signed on to this plan (http://www.jenniferhorn.org/general/page/reforming-social-security).
Unfortunately, Gingrich failed to tell the whole story about the Sununu-Horn plan. He left out that the plan relies on what the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) called a "gimmick," namely the transfer of trillions of dollars in government revenue to the Social Security Trust Fund (http://www.cbpp.org/4-26-05socsec2.htm). Social Security's Chief Actuary made it quite clear that without this transfer the plan would not work (http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/solvency/RyanSununu_20050420.html).
The CBPP estimated that in "present value" the Sununu-Horn plan would cost $8.5 trillion over 75 years, a figure more than "twice as large as the entire Social Security shortfall." Transfers of this magnitude would almost certainly require reductions in other areas, such as defense, Medicare, and veterans' benefits. The Sununu-Horn plan is hardly something we can afford.
The bottom line is that, as Jeanne Shaheen notes, Social Security is not in crisis. Even if we do nothing, the Trust Fund will not run out of money until 2041. After that, Social Security will still take in enough in payroll taxes to meet around 75 percent of its obligations. The challenge is closing this narrow gap, not creating personal accounts, as Sununu and Horn advocate. Social Security is a great success, and we should oppose any politician who would tamper with it.
Poor John E. is upset about the big bad DSCC bringing up his past:
The only ad Sununu said he strongly objects to is one from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee that he said scares seniors about his plan to permit younger workers to invest some of their Social Security tax money in private investment accounts.
"I do find that a little disappointing. I would never run an ad like that," Sununu said.
Of course Sununu wouldn't run an ad like that. It's a too accurate reflection of the truth of his and George W. Bush's radical free marketeerism. But don't take my word for it, take fellow fiscal neocon Newt Gingrich:
President Bush began talking about the need for personal Social Security accounts when he was a candidate. He has continued to advocate that we can save Social Security by using the power of the market to increase savings far better than government can.
Now New Hampshire Sen. John Sununu and Wisconsin Republican Rep. Paul Ryan have introduced in Congress what may become the most sweeping, visionary, breakthrough legislation to help enrich working people in my lifetime.
Of course, if you want the real truth about how the fiscally irresponsible Bush-Ryan-Sununu plan would have raided the treasury to pay for the shortfall created by these personal retirement accounts - accounts that would have been devastated by today's market conditions, btw - you don't need to look any further than this invaluable study by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
But if you don't want to wade through all that reality-based analysis, take a less radical Republican's word for it. George H.W. Bush in 1987, responding to a question about partially privatizing Social Security:
I think it's a nutty idea to fool around with the Social Security system and run the risk of [hurting] the people who've been saving all their lives.... It may be a new idea, but it's a dumb one.
Yeah, I'm gonna say both of these DSCC ads are totally appropriate for the "smartest man in the senate":
I'm at CR Sparks in Bedford, waiting for the debate to start. As I pulled in, there was great highway vis for Carol along Rt. 3, with tons of people and signs. A few Bradley supporters were visible. There were more Carol supporters in front of the building with huge signs. No Bradley folks, just signs.
Carol's mom is here - attracting some groupie attention, "we've seen you in the ads!" Ray Buckley and Mike Brunelle are here. Steve Marchand works with AARP so he's here. Lots of seniors, of course. The room is definitely filling up. I didn't know I'd be able to blog, so I didn't make a big deal of it, but I'll be doing some live-blogging.
It's as if they personally asked me what I wanted for the next Senate ad:
I'll posit it again: what would your retirement prospects look like now if you had directed money from your Social Security payments to a 401k? Sununu's record championing this is clear, and extensive:
"President Bush will be active during his second term on issues of great importance to the future of our country. In particular, he is committed to modernizing Social Security, and has put forward a reform proposal that will keep the program solvent, healthy, and strong for future generations. I look forward to working with President Bush so that we may continue to guarantee a benefit for all retirees, while giving younger workers the opportunity to create a personal retirement account - an investment that will be there for them when they retire and that will earn a much greater rate of return than the current program.
(Susan is the Netroots Outreach Director for the Carol Shea-Porter campaign. - promoted by Dean Barker)
In 2002, when Jeb Bradley ran for Congress, he said he was against privatizing Social Security. A funny thing happened after he went to Congress. He went from being a moderate Republican state legislator to a conservative Republican Congressman. In 2005, after being elected to a second term, President Bush decided that Social Security "reform" would be the centerpiece of his legacy. Apparently invading a country that was no threat to us, or creating the largest deficit in US history wasn't enough for him. Bush now set his sights on privatizing (destroying) Social Security. He set about getting the faithful aboard the privatization train. Jeb Bradley wasn't leaping on board fast enough, so Bush came to NH for a hit and run visit at Pease International Tradeport. Both of our US Senators were there. Jeb Bradley wasn't invited - to a presidential visit in his district.
Big snub.
The event was billed as a town hall meeting, even though no one was allowed to ask any questions. The event was limited (in true George Bush style) to the party faithful, to ensure no dissent. Here is the White House description of the "town hall" meeting to discuss strengthening Social Security. Strengthening is a euphemism, just as privatizing is. What Bush and his cohorts have in mind is dismantling and destroying the most successful anti-poverty program in our nation's history. Jeb Bradley got the message behind that big snub, and began to change his tune about Social Security. At town hall meetings, he discussed the need to have all the options on the table. The only option ever mentioned was Bush's plan. It was hugely unpopular. I know, because I was at most of those town hall meetings. Bradley refused to take a position on Bush's plan. He would not, despite the best efforts of thousands of constituents say whether or not he would protect Social Security from being destroyed. He refused to take a stand, right up to the bitter end. He was on the NHPR show, The Exchange" about a week before election day, and would not make his position clear, even in the face of uncharacteristically strong questioning by Laura Knoy.
The plan to privatize Social Security proved to be extremely unpopular with the voters. Many excuses have been made as to why Jeb Bradley lost the election to grassroots candidate Carol Shea-Porter. The unpopularity of the war, the unpopularity of Bush, etc. I believe that one of the great unsung reasons for the Bradley loss was his non-stance on Social Security. Carol Shea-Porter ran a better, stronger campaign that flew under the wire. UNH poll meister Andy Smith never gave Shea-Porter a chance. On election day, he was on NHPR predicting a big victory for Bradley. You may have noticed his polling shows the same kind of results this time. I'm not sure why we should take any poll with a 6% margin of error very seriously.
Bradley's been off the radar for the last two years. During that time, NH has voted in a civil union law (Bradley was against any kind of legitimizing for same gender relationships), voted to refuse to participate in the REAL ID program (Bradley voted for it). Things are changing in NH. Has Bradley learned from his loss? Has he listened to the winds of change?
This video: WMUR Commitment 2008 may provide an answer to that question. The video is both of the NH-01 GOP primary candidates answering the question, "What will you do to protect Social Security?" Bradley doesn't tell us. We learn that his children will be of retirement age when Social Security goes bankrupt. Given Jeb's multi-million dollar stock portfolio, it's unlikely that the kids will be worried about eating cat food or living under bridges when they're old. What Jeb tells us is not his position on protecting Social Security. Instead of taking a stand, he tells us we need to have a discussion on increasing the returns of the money we put into Social Security. What a wimp. What a wimpy, fraidy-cat answer. Bradley isn't brave enough to take a stand in favor of privatization, knowing how unpopular it would be with
voters - so he wimps out on answering at all.
Imagine if Bush and company had gotten their way, and turned the Social Security Trust Fund over to Wall St? How might things be looking today for NH seniors?
One thing is certain. We can't rely on Jeb Bradley to protect Social Security. We can't even rely on him for a straight answer.
Thanks for getting the party started, Dean. I decided not to muck up your Sununu thread. :)
John E. Sununu, triumphant herald of Bush's 2005 SOTU, at the outset of the president's disastrous second term:
"President Bush will be active during his second term on issues of great importance to the future of our country. In particular, he is committed to modernizing Social Security, and has put forward a reform proposal that will keep the program solvent, healthy, and strong for future generations. I look forward to working with President Bush so that we may continue to guarantee a benefit for all retirees, while giving younger workers the opportunity to create a personal retirement account - an investment that will be there for them when they retire and that will earn a much greater rate of return than the current program.
Do you remember those days, when we worked tirelessly to make Bush a one-term mistake, and instead he earned a second act more arrogant than before, ready to undo the remaining vestiges of FDR? Thank goodness the Bush/Sununu attempt to destroy one of the most reliable, enduring programs in our history marked the beginning of the end of the Administration's assault on everyday Americans.
But just imagine if Bush and Sununu got their way with our money back in 2005? What would our retirement look like after today's market collapse?
Every Granite State voter deserves to be reminded of this dark episode from the Bush/Sununu era. And also deserves to know that Sununu was no simple cheerleader for Bush's privatization plan. Indeed, he was a chief architect for dismantling FDR's gift to us:
(And while we are at it, Jennifer Horn supports destroying Social Security as well, and Jeb Bradley is sprinting away from the issue as fast as he can.)
As the stock market struggles mightily to stay as high as it was when George Bush took office, a lot of people are relieved that Democrats successfully blocked the Bush-Sununu-McCain attempt to carve "private accounts" out of the program. But how solid is the program?
In the middle of the "privatization" debate I did a fair amount of research and number crunching. I'll share my understanding below the fold. The diary is laid out as:
(On sabbatical from BH as a "Front-Pager," Susan is now the Netroots Outreach Director for the Carol Shea-Porter campaign. I'm promoting this because she took the words right out of my mouth when it comes to Bush League Bradley. - promoted by Dean Barker)
Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter is going to be facing former Congressman Jeb Bradley in the general election. CSP defeated Bradley in 2006. Bradley was a two-term GOP incumbent who didn't take Carol seriously. After all, he had tons of campaign cash, he is a multimillionaire, and she was just some social worker. Sheesh - that's almost as bad as a community organizer!
The Bradley camp has said many times that Bradley lost because of the strong anti-war sentiment/anti-Bush sentiment that saw many Republicans lose seats all over the country. It's a neat little justification, and one that avoids having to face the truth.
In 2006 Jeb Bradley was out of touch with the priorities of NH voters. Bradley was the only member of the entire New England Congressional delegation who voted in favor of amending the US Constitution to forbid same gender marriage. Bradley consistently fought against increasing the minimum wage. He voted for the REAL ID Act. Since Bradley was fired, NH has passed a Civil Unions bill, increased the minimum wage, and voted against taking part in REAL ID.
Most egregious of all was Bradley's stance on Social Security. He campaigned in 2002 saying that he was against privatizing Social Security. By 2005, he'd begun saying that we "needed to explore all the options." It's certainly a coincidence that he changed his tune after President Bush visited NH. NH residents were strongly against destroying (privatizing) Social Security, yet Bradley refused to show leadership and take a stand right up to the bitter end. On election day in 2006, he was on The Exchange refusing to take a stand.
Jeb's been out of work for a couple of years now. There's no sign that he's learned from his mistakes, no sign that he's any more in touch with NH priorities than he was in 2006.
Carol Shea-Porter knows the priorities of NH voters. She's working to ensure that we don't freeze to death in our homes this winter. She knows that we need to protect and preserve Social Security. Jeb's always done his best to represent the top 1%. Carol has made good on her promise to represent the bottom 99% of us. We must ensure that Jeb stays unemployed. He can afford it. We can't afford him.
It makes me so proud when the Democratic Party doesn't shy away from its greatest successes.
Today is the 73rd anniversary of FDR's signing of Social Security into law. His grandson is here to tell us its newest threat to survival, in a web ad I wish could be shortened and made into a TV spot:
And if anyone doubts Privateer McCain's position on this, click here to see how he tried to swindle Granite Staters on it just a little while ago.
And of course, it is (or should be) common knowledge that Privateer John E. Sununu is not only a supporter but a champion of turning Social Security into Individual Risk.
Update: LOL - a cake!
Upperdate: ROFL - looks like all the SS Raiders named John got cake today!
While McCain supporters screamed, "Obama sleeps with a Teddy Bear and a night light," staffers approached the Democratic group, yelling, took the 20 inch sheet cake that said "Happy Birthday Social Security" and threw it away.
"The McCain campaign is so out of touch instead of taking the cake to a homeless shelter or giving it volunteers, they just threw it in the garbage," said Conchita Cruz, Press Secretary for the Democratic Party of New Mexico. "What a perfect metaphor for why we can't trust John McCain with our social security, the campaign was literally throwing money in the trash."
Ran across this issue again recently, and though it's a little bit of old news, it's worth considering as we get closer to the general election in November, particularly from the, ahem, grey point of view.
Pending bills S.206/H.R.82 repeal the so-called Government pension offset (GPO) and windfall elimination (WEP) provisions of the Social Security Act. These provisions penalize some public employees (teachers, cops, firefighters, etc.) in some states (Mass., for example) by either cutting or completely eliminating Social Security benefits they or their spouse earned.
By way of full disclosure: as it stands I will be one of the victims of this as a public employee in MA, and all of the Social Security benefits I have earned and continue to earn over 40+ years of employment in NH are at risk. And, to make matters worse, should I be survived by my spouse, survivor benefits accruing to her will be denied as well.
This legislation is currently languishing in committee since its last hearings in Nov. 2007, but it's interesting to note who's who when it comes to co-sponsors:
Rep. Paul Hodes - Yes
Rep. Carol Shea-Porter - Yes
Sen. Barack Obama - Yes
Sen. Judd Gregg - No
Sen. John Sununu - No
Sen. John McCain - No
Easy to see what consideration we "greys" are given by the Blue. Red, not so much.
Interesting McCan't would distance himself from SS privatization in New Hampshire, given that our junior senator John E. Sununu is a champion of dismantling FDR's legacy.
p.s. Looks like between 200 and 300 people showed up for a guy our state supposedly has a huge affection for. I'm guessing Obama could pull in ten times that amount (and likely, more) at a moment's notice in Nashua.
From Seacoastonline.com the Alliance for Retired Americans gives NH Senators Sununu and Gregg low ratings.
From the story:
The Alliance voting record examines 10 key Senate votes and 10 key House votes in 2007, showing the roll calls on blocking Social Security privatization, lowering Medicare costs, expanding access to affordable health care, stopping oil price gouging, and protecting voting rights.
Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., was 10 for 10 in voting against New Hampshire's seniors, while Sen. John Sununu, R-NH, voted against New Hampshire's seniors 9 out of 10 times. Representatives Paul Hodes and Carol Shea Porter had perfect scores of 100 percent, having voted favorably on all 10 issues in the interest of New Hampshire's seniors.
This is more bad news for John E. in an election year - seniors vote! In an increasingly unstable economy, the idea of privatizing Social Security makes even less sense.
CD 1 voters were riled up about privatization in 2005/06. Jeb Bradley's town hall meetings were packed with folks who were mighty angry at the mere thought of it. No matter how clear it was that NH did NOT support privatization, he kept shilling the Bush plan. I firmly believe his stance on Social Security was a factor in his defeat.
We can all be proud that Shea-Porter and Hodes are standing up for NH seniors.
One of the benefits of having an ex-Sununu staffer like Grant Bosse running for Congress is that when a question comes up about Social Security, we get a two-fer.
First, we see that Grant Bosse wants, and proudly so, to privatize Social Security, perhaps the signature moment of President Bush's overreach upon winning re-election. In fact, I would wager that Bush's failed attempt to grab tightly onto that third rail was the beginning of a precipitous decline in the polls from which he never recovered.
Secondly, having an ex-staffer talk about privatizing Social Security via the Ryan-Sununu act is a perfect way to remind voters that John E. Sununu was not only a supporter but a champion of dismantling FDR's social pact.
P.S. I do have some sympathy for Bosse, though, after having watched that Plymouth State forum (click on this one to hear the words "Islamofascism" - no, really!). He's clearly running rings around Jennifer Horn, who never met an unspecific phrase she didn't like, with the exception of cutting taxes to solve all our economic woes. If you can bear to watch those YouTubes, you will emerge very confident about Paul Hodes' chances come November.
Today we are privileged to read an extended "Commentary" from John E. Sununu on the economy from the Union Leader. How nice.
When I read it, I was reminded again, as I have been so many times since looking at his record and statements for so many months, of two things: 1) how he is able to put you to sleep with SenatorSpeak, and 2) how that soporific style does a good job of masking his unwaveringly radical right-wing money policy.
So let's unpack it some. When John E. says...
We also need to make today's lower taxes on families, entrepreneurs, and small business permanent. The rates were first lowered in 2001.
... what he means is that the reckless and repeated tax cuts that Bush wanted, and Sununu helped make a reality, should be made permanent. You know, the ones that went to the uber-rich and have resulted in the widening of an income gap that has surpassed that of the Great Depression.
And when he says...
partisan attacks have prevented us from modernizing our Social Security system for future generations
... he means that despite the overwhelming rejection Americans gave to Bush's attempt to privatize Social Security in 2005, John E. will keep pushing for it (indeed, a casual news search shows he has been a champion of the Gingrich-Norquist-Bush dream of supplanting "Social" with "Private" and "Security" with "Risk").
The recent WMUR/CNN Poll showed registered Democrats are choosing Senator Clinton over Senator Obama two to one (40% to 20%). That has been a constant in polls over the past year in which independents seem more inclined to consider Senator Obama and Democrats tend to support Senator Clinton overwhelmingly.
What is it about the two candidates causes registered Democrats more likely to choose Senator Clinton over Senator Obama?
One theory is that Senator Obama advances an image as a unifier and compromiser, a non-ideologue, rather than a fighter. Many Democrats think that compromise is not what it cracks up to be, especially when dealing with the current crop of conservatives. So the image of a partisan fighter or ideologue appeals to registered Democrats and the image of a non-ideologue appeals to independents.
Calling all policy wonks - Those of you who pride themselves on making their decision about whom to vote on the policies/positions/proposals of the candidates running. For the moment, set aside all the poll numbers and arguments about electability. Take a break and just forget those petty character assassinations of your least favorite candidate.
Let's have a policy debate!
There probably is really not much general policy difference between the Democratic candidates on issues important to Democratic voters. Nevertheless, in my honest opinion, there are at least three key areas which affect all of us in which Senator Clinton's policies/positions/proposals are arguably superior to Senator Obama's policies/positions/proposals.
They are good reasons based upon policy why people should vote for Senator Clinton over Senator Obama.
I apologize in advance for the length of this post, but I wanted to make it as thorough as possible. Due to space and time, I have concentrated on differences between the current frontrunners.
Full disclosure: I am a New Hampshire volunteer for and enthusiastic supporter of Hillary Clinton.
Las Vegas is one of my favorite places. There is an abundance of glitz and lights and plenty going on to keep you busy for 24 hours at a time. It is also a rough and tumble place - the site of many a boxing match.
The Democratic candidates debated last Thursday in Vegas and Senator Clinton proved she was still the one to beat. I score it a technical knockout (TKO) against her two chief opponents.
In spite of the well known advertising slogan of "What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas," more than four million views tuned in to see the Democratic candidates face off. The audience was the largest in cable new history. They saw quite an exciting debate.
