January, 03 2012, 04:15pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Don Owens, (202) 302-5928, dowens@socialsecurity-works.org
Josh Rosenblum, (202) 587-1635, jrosenblum@socialsecurity-works.org
The Race to the Bottom for Worst Social Security Proposals of GOP Presidential Candidates
Social Security Works recently unveiled a new guide which reveals that the top six Republican Presidential candidates agree: If they had their way, they would cut or do away with Social Security, America's most successful insurance program. The guide shows that when these Republican Presidential candidates say we need to "save" Social Security, what they really mean is we need to end Social Security.
WASHINGTON
Social Security Works recently unveiled a new guide which reveals that the top six Republican Presidential candidates agree: If they had their way, they would cut or do away with Social Security, America's most successful insurance program. The guide shows that when these Republican Presidential candidates say we need to "save" Social Security, what they really mean is we need to end Social Security.
Social Security provides benefits to nearly 600,000 Iowans, 121,800 New Hampshire residents, 440,400 South Carolina residents and millions of Americans. Social Security has a lot at stake on the early caucus and primary outcome. The brief guide below includes such horrible gems as "fraud" and "privatization" language from Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Rick Perry, Michelle Bachmann, and Rick Santorum.
Below are some of the things Presidential candidates have said in their race to the bottom for worst Social Security proposals:
Called Social Security A Fraud, Ponzi Scheme, or Unconstitutional | Wants to Raise the Social Security Retirement Age | Supports Some Form of Privatization | |
MICHELE | [Social Security] "is a tremendous fraud. no company could get away with this, they'd be thrown in jail if they ever tried to do what the federal government did with people's Social Security money." -Fox News, February 17, 2010 | Voted to raise the Social Security retirement age to 70, which would cut benefits by up to 20 percent for new beneficiaries when fully phased in. -Voted Yes on Republican Study Committee Budget, Roll call Vote 275, April 15, 2011 | "But people that are younger than [10 years away from retirement], they need to have some options in their lives, so that going forward they can have an ownership of their own Social Security, their own retirement." -Fox News, February 17, 2010 |
NEWT | "it is a fraud and a lie the way that congress deals with Social Security." | No position stated. | "any candidate who is not prepared to give younger americans the right to choose [a private account] has no serious plan for Social Security." |
RON | "Technically, [Social Security is unconstitutional]. ...there's no authority [in the constitution for it]." | No direct position, but Paul sees it as irrelevant since he would dismantle the entire program and allow people to opt-out of Social Security. -(MSNBC interview, April 27, 2011) | "But I want to privatize the retirement funds and put the responsibility on the individual." |
RICK | Social Security "is a Ponzi scheme for these young people. ...the idea that [young people] are working and paying into Social Security today, that the current program is going to be there for them... is a monstrous lie on this generation, and we can't do that to them." -Iowa Caucus event at the Vine Coffeehouse, 8/27/11 | "if you're a forty-five year-old or less, we're going to move that retirement age up to sixty-nine or seventy." -Town Hall, 9/5/11 | "if only the new Dealers had been kind enough to allow workers to make their own choice about whether to participate [in Social Security]. as we know from experience, individuals would have done better on their own [with private accounts]." -Fed Up, 2010, page 61 |
MITT | "There simply is no [trust] 'fund' safely invested somewhere... to put it in a nutshell, the American people have been effectively defrauded out of their Social Security. ... let's look at what would happen if someone in the private sector did a similar thing... They would go to jail. But what has happened to the people responsible for the looming bankruptcy of Social Security? They keep returning to congress every two years." -No Apology, 2010, pp. 172-3 | "Alternatively, we could gradually raise the retirement age. this does have a certain logic to it..." -No Apology, 2010, p. 173 | "One thing that [President Bush] proposed, and it's a good idea, is to take some of that money, or all of that surplus [Social Security] money and allow people to have a personal account." -town hall, 6/5/2007 |
RICK | No position stated. | "I proposed [raising the retirement age] back in 1994, and I think that's an option that has to be on the table." -(Meet the Press, June 12, 2011) "We're in the middle of a phase-up [in the retirement age] to age 67...We need to continue to do that." -(Remarks at Lancaster, SC, September 13, 2011) | "Personal retirement accounts provide individuals--not the government--with control and ownership. and they hold the promise of a greater return for future generations than what they are promised by today's Social Security system." -(the Hill, March 1, 2005) |
The Strengthen Social Security Campaign is comprised of more than 300 national and state organizations representing more than 50 million Americans from many of the nation's leading aging, labor, disability, women's, children, consumer, civil rights and equality organizations.
LATEST NEWS
Another State Department Official Resigns Over Biden Gaza Policy
"I wasn't able to really do my job anymore," said Annelle Sheline. "Trying to advocate for human rights just became impossible."
Mar 27, 2024
Saying her job at a State Department office that advocates for human rights in the Middle East has become "impossible" as the Biden administration continues to back Israel's assault on civilians in Gaza, foreign affairs officer Annelle Sheline resigned from her position on Wednesday in protest of President Joe Biden's policy in the region.
Sheline noted in an interview with The Washington Post that quitting her job in the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor was not something she took lightly, with "a daughter and a mortgage"—but said her day-to-day work on human rights had become ineffectual "as long as the U.S. continues to send a steady stream of weapons to Israel."
Despite the fact that U.S. law prohibits the government from arming countries that violate human rights—as Israel has long been accused by the United Nations of doing in its policy toward the occupied Palestinian territories—the Biden administration has approved the transfer of bombs and other weapons to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) since the military began its relentless bombardment of Gaza and blockade on nearly all humanitarian aid.
Sheline told the Post that as the news out of Gaza has grown more dire since October—with at least 32,490 Palestinians killed, at least 74,889 wounded, and parts of northern Gaza now facing famine conditions due to Israel's blocking of aid—some of her bureau's partners in the Middle East have stopped engaging with the State Department.
"If they are willing to engage, they mostly want to talk about Gaza rather than the fact that they are also dealing with extreme repression or threats of imprisonment," Sheline told the Post of the activists and civil society groups her office routinely worked with to further human rights in the region before Israel's assault began. "The first point they bring up is: How is this happening?"
"I wasn't able to really do my job anymore," Sheline added. "Trying to advocate for human rights just became impossible."
Sheline is just the latest official to resign in protest of Biden's approach to Israel and Gaza.
In October Josh Paul resigned from his position as director of congressional and public affairs for the State Department's Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, where he oversaw weapons transfers to U.S. allies.
Paul told the Post that Sheline's decision "speaks volumes about the Biden administration's disregard for the laws, policies and basic humanity of American foreign policy that the bureau exists to advance."
A policy adviser in the Education Department, Tariq Habash, also stepped down from his role in January, saying he could no longer be "quietly complicit" in the killing of tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians.
The State Department's internal dissent channel has also been used by numerous officials to voice outrage over the Biden administration's continued defense of Israel's actions.
Stephen Walt, professor of international affairs at the Harvard Kennedy School, called Sheline's resignation "courageous."
Feds United for Peace, a group of government workers across nearly two dozen federal agencies which organized a daylong fast in January to protest the U.S.-backed slaughter of Palestinians, expressed solidarity with Sheline.
"That decision comes at a personal and real cost to her, and is a loss of a patriotic and deeply qualified employee for the Department of State," said the group in a statement. "Every arms shipment to Israel by the Biden administration and every one of the three vetoes of U.N. cease-fire resolutions has enabled Israeli impunity in its rampage across Gaza... Thousands of innocent lives are in President Biden's hands; the time has come to translate gentle requests for the protection of civilians into concrete action to stop the killing."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Support for Israel's War on Gaza Plummeting Among Key Biden Voters: Poll
"Given these numbers," said one progressive campaigner, "I don't know how President Biden can reconcile his stalwart support for Israel with the clear preference that his core constituents have for an end to this war."
Mar 27, 2024
A Gallup survey released Wednesday shows that U.S. public support for Israel's military assault on Gaza has plummeted since November, with the decline particularly sharp among Democratic voters whom President Joe Biden will need to turn out to win reelection against presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump.
Just 18% of Democratic voters currently approve of "the military action Israel has taken in Gaza" and 75% disapprove, according to the new poll, which was conducted between March 1-20. In November, 36% of Democratic respondents expressed approval of Israel's war and 63% disapproved.
"The crosstabs are even more striking—nearly two-thirds of people under 54, people of color, and women disapprove of the military action in Gaza," Sam Rosenthal, political director of the progressive advocacy group RootsAction, told Common Dreams in response to the new poll. "That is effectively the Democratic Party's base."
"Given these numbers," Rosenthal added, "I don't know how President Biden can reconcile his stalwart support for Israel with the clear preference that his core constituents have for an end to this war."
Overall, Gallup found that 55% of the American public—including 60% of Independents and 30% of Republicans—disapproves of Israel's military campaign in the Gaza Strip, up from 45% in November. Just 36% of the U.S. public approves, down from 50% four months ago.
"Biden is risking his second term and our democracy by continuing to support the kind of violence and cruelty that is being perpetrated in Gaza right now."
Observers
noted that Gallup's new poll was conducted after the Israeli military's February 29 massacre of Palestinians seeking food aid. Since October, according to one human rights monitor, Israeli forces have killed more than 560 people waiting for humanitarian aid, the delivery of which Israel's government has intentionally hindered—fueling the spread of famine across the territory.
The Biden administration has backed Israel's assault from the beginning, providing the Netanyahu government with billions of dollars worth of weapons and diplomatic cover despite widespread and growing protests at home and abroad. Gallup's survey found that 74% of U.S. adults say they are following developments in Gaza "closely."
Political analyst Yousef Munayyer wrote on social media that "Biden's policy of continued support for Israel's war on Gaza is in line with the views of the right-wing Republicans," noting that 64% of GOP voters still approve of the Israeli assault—down slightly from 71% in November.
"Just to emphasize how extreme his position is and out of line with his voters," he added, "more Republicans disapprove of the war than Democrats who approve."
Growing Democratic opposition to Israel's military action in Gaza has fueled grassroots campaigns across the country urging voters to mark "uncommitted" on their Democratic primary ballots to pressure Biden to change course ahead of the general election against Trump, who has voiced support for Israel's devastating assault on Gaza.
"Uncommitted" campaigns won 11 Democratic National Convention (DNC) delegates in Minnesota and two in both Michigan and Washington state.
"Biden is risking his second term and our democracy by continuing to support the kind of violence and cruelty that is being perpetrated in Gaza right now," Faheem Khan, president of the American Muslim Advancement Council and a lead organizer of Uncommitted WA, said earlier this week.
Rosenthal of RootsAction told Common Dreams on Wednesday that the U.S. decision to abstain and allow the U.N. Security Council to pass a cease-fire resolution earlier this week was "a step in the right direction, and a clear indication that domestic pressure from campaigns like Listen to Michigan and other uncommitted voting efforts is working."
"However, actual policy towards Israel has changed very little," said Rosenthal. "Biden is still clamoring for more military aid to be sent, and the U.S. still largely supports Israel's line, i.e., that military operations in Gaza are solely aimed at rooting out Hamas. What is manifestly obvious to the rest of the world, that Israel is committed to the wanton destruction of the Gaza Strip, is somehow escaping the administration's notice."
"President Biden should decide quickly whether he wants to continue to uphold policy that is increasingly associated with the opposition party," Rosenthal added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Cori Bush Demands Repeal of 'Zombie Statute' Weaponized by Anti-Abortion Zealots
"The Comstock Act must be repealed," said the Missouri Democrat.
Mar 27, 2024
Rep. Cori Bush on Tuesday called for the repeal of a long-obsolete law that anti-abortion activists, lawmakers, and judges have worked to revive as part of their nationwide assault on reproductive rights.
"The Comstock Act must be repealed," Bush (D-Mo.) wrote in a social media post on Tuesday as the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case brought by a group of anti-abortion doctors aiming to curtail access to mifepristone—a medication used in more than 60% of U.S. abortions.
"Enacted in 1873, it is a zombie statute, a dead law that the far-right is trying to reanimate," Bush warned. "The anti-abortion movement wants to weaponize the Comstock Act as a quick route to a nationwide medication abortion ban. Not on our watch."
Bush's office said she was the first member of Congress to demand the law's repeal since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to abortion in the summer of 2022.
The Comstock Act, which hasn't been applied in a century and was repeatedly narrowed following its enactment, prohibits the mailing of any "instrument, substance, drug, medicine, or thing" that "may, or can, be used or applied for producing abortion." Legal experts have described the dormant law as the "most significant national threat to reproductive rights."
Given that "virtually everything used for an abortion—from abortion pills, to the instruments for abortion procedures, to clinic supplies—gets mailed to providers in some form," a trio of experts wrote earlier this year, the anti-abortion movement's "interpretation of the Comstock Act could mean a nationwide ban on all abortions, even in states where it remains legal."
"Enforcing a Victorian-era law would be deeply unpopular and Democrats have a chance to sound the alarm, take action in both chambers, and run on it."
The Biden Justice Department has argued that the Comstock Act "does not prohibit the mailing of certain drugs that can be used to perform abortions where the sender lacks the intent that the recipient of the drugs will use them unlawfully."
But the law has nevertheless been cited with growing frequency by far-right advocacy groups and judges following the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
In 2023, a Trump-appointed federal judge in Texas, Matthew Kacsmaryk, invoked the Comstock Act in a decision suspending the Food and Drug Administration's 2000 approval of mifepristone. In 2021, the FDA said it would allow patients to receive abortion medication by mail—which Kacsmaryk claimed the Comstock Act "plainly forecloses."
That case, which has massive implications for abortion rights nationwide, is now before the U.S. Supreme Court.
During oral arguments on Tuesday, Justices Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas "repeatedly invoked the Comstock Act," The Washington Postreported, "pressing lawyers about whether the 1873 federal law should apply to abortion drugs sent through the mail today."
The justices' comments raised concerns that they could try to resurrect the Comstock Act in their coming ruling in the mifepristone case.
"While the Biden administration has issued guidance saying that the federal government
will not enforce the laws," the Post noted, "a future administration seeking to restrict abortion could choose to do so."
Donald Trump, the former president and presumptive 2024 Republican nominee, has expressed support for a national abortion ban.
Jezebel's Susan Rinkunas wrote Tuesday that "enforcing a Victorian-era law would be deeply unpopular and Democrats have a chance to sound the alarm, take action in both chambers, and run on it."
"We definitively have one lawmaker on board," Rinkunas added, referring to Bush. "Who's next?"
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular