Jackson Free Press

Mississippi Democrats used the birthday of the 70-year-old Social Security program to attack presumed Republican presidential nominee John McCain last week, accusing the Arizona senator of wanting to privatize the program. "Just one month ago, on July 7, Senator McCain told a town-hall audience that the way Social Security works is a disgrace and told ABC this week that everything will be on the table if he becomes president, including the privatization of Social Security," said Mississippi Democratic Party Vice Chairwoman Barbara Blackmon. "We're here today, exactly one week before the birthday of Social Security, to let the people know that we will not support any effort to privatize the most successful anti-poverty program in our nation."

Blackmon, standing before a crowd of Democratic supporters and Social Security advocates, said the business market was far too volatile to be an investment target for the accrued money of millions of Americans who pay into the system with every paycheck.

"For anyone who has witnessed our failing national economy, it's obvious that we shouldn't bet on Wall Street and risk the financial benefits of thousands of people who depend on Social Security. It's dangerous, risky, unnecessary, and it won't work," Blackmon said, adding that presumed Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama, of Illinois, had committed to completely removing privatization efforts. "Obama stands with us and opposes privatization."

Both candidates have acknowledged, however, that the program is facing shortfalls as more Americans retire and collect their benefits.

Mario Diaz, communication director of the southeastern region the McCain campaign, did not respond to the Jackson Free Press phone calls.

Mississippi Republican Party Chairman Brad White called the press conference a "joke," and criticized the participants for prematurely attacking McCain on a a plan option that the candidate has yet to officially adopt.

"They're basically arguing against what qualifies as a hypothetical point," White said. "What McCain said is there's a problem with Social Security with baby boomers aging and taking out more than they're putting in the next few years. All he said was that everything was on the table except raising the Social Security payroll tax, because he wants a bipartisan plan, something that people on both sides of the aisle can consider. He said he was willing to look at anything, and I don't see how you can criticize someone for be willing to look at almost all the options."

White added that some other countries already use a full or partial privatization plan to mimic Social Security, and said all possibilities warrant consideration.

McCain revealed his willingness to consider privatization in March, when he told The Wall Street Journal that "private savings accounts" would be a part of his plan to reform Social Security. He again advocated the idea of privatization on CNN last month, saying he wanted "young workers to be able to ... take part of their own money, which is their taxes, and put it in an account which has their name on it."

McCain assured during the interview that participation would be "voluntary" and did not believe the practice would affect present-day retirees.

Opponents of private accounts argue that a swath of young workers diverting their money to private accounts would bankrupt the fund, leaving current retirees either with severely reduced benefits or no benefits at all. Democrats blasting McCain's words could help alienate him from 45-and-older voters who generally approve of McCain over Obama.

Obama acknowledges that Social Security will be strained in the upcoming years as the U.S. population matures, but he advocates raising or removing the $97,500 income cap and repealing President George Bush's tax cut for people who make more than $250,000. Currently, Americans making more than $97,500 do not pay Social Security taxes for income over that amount.

A majority of the Republican-controlled U.S. Congress pushed hard for the privatization option three years ago, but the push proved unpopular with Americans, and the Bush administration abandoned the effort in June 2005 after introducing a Social Security reform bill that did not contain the private account option. McCain later hired Harvard economics professor Martin Feldstein—a vocal supporter of private accounts—to advise his 2008 campaign.

Previous Comments

ID

133010

Comment

[quote]State Democrats Slam McCain[/quote] Wow, I had no idea they disliked him.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2008-08-12T20:34:06-06:00

ID

133055

Comment

Currently, Americans making more than $97,500 do not pay Social Security taxes for income over that amount. I didn't know that. Does anyone know why?

Author

LatashaWillis

Date

2008-08-14T02:01:10-06:00

ID

133060

Comment

That's the upper end of the wage base the gov't has set. Why? I guess to give people and employers a break. Here' a list of the wage base from 1397 to now. http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/cbb.html I thought the upper limit was still $60,000.

Author

BubbaT

Date

2008-08-14T08:56:56-06:00

ID

133140

Comment

Did anyone watch the Forum with Obama and McCain on CNN (8-15-08)? Rev. Warren, forum host, said that McCain was in a "cone of silence" during his session with Barac. This turns out to be a lie because McCain was not in the building period: He was in a limo with secrete service folks. This election is beginning to stink and that includes the Bill & Hilary Show scheduled for the Democratic Convention.

Author

justjess

Date

2008-08-18T09:09:27-06:00

ID

133141

Comment

Please add another (l) in the spelling of Hillary's name. "My Bad".

Author

justjess

Date

2008-08-18T09:13:14-06:00

ID

133142

Comment

JJ: Both had been briefed on the topics Warren would be talking about (in general, I assume). McCain was with the Secret Service, but had no idea of what was being specifically asked. It's the Obama camp putting out that "Wah! He wasn't in his Green Room exactly on time!" The real story is out there on the web. Don't trust NBC.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2008-08-18T09:38:58-06:00

ID

133145

Comment

Ironghost, the jury is still out on this one. Rev. Warren admits that McCain was not in a "cone of silence" during his period with Obama as he had earlier stated. Warren's acknowledgment give the appearance of foul play.

Author

justjess

Date

2008-08-18T10:00:30-06:00

ID

133146

Comment

The real story is the one told my Rev. Warren. For whatever reason, he stated something as "fact" that was absolutely untrue. McCain was not in a sound proof room!

Author

justjess

Date

2008-08-18T10:04:11-06:00

ID

133147

Comment

As usual, a republican (McCain in this case) is pro-life unless he decides to start or support a war to take your oil, life, land, lifestyle or other things he needs to support his imperialism, colonialism, and hegemony. Hell will be missing many so-called angels during that republican convention to come. I can't for the life of me understand why so-called evangelicals are cherished since their religion is as situational, corruptible and dysfunctional as a toddler making life-affirming or national security decisions. These evangelicals have no real moral, Christian or religious standing otherwise the republican party wouldn't have been able to purchase them willy nilly like they have in the past under George Bush. In my opinion, they're as phony as the republican party and they both belong together. However, I guess since nuts stick together, a person running for president has to figure out how to gain the support of the nuts. I'll change my opinion of them as soon as I see some real religion, morality and God-like qualities in most of them.

Author

Walt

Date

2008-08-18T10:04:50-06:00

ID

133152

Comment

I'm not getting the reason people making over $97,00 need "a break" - am I missing something here?

Author

Izzy

Date

2008-08-18T11:15:17-06:00

ID

133153

Comment

I really appreciate Obama's response to the abortion issue. McCain just flat out lied. This time a year ago, he was pro-choice: This month, he is pro-life. What makes sense is that a person can be both pro-choice and pro-life and at the same time. For me, I had my children; however, I don't want to legislate my choice for the choice others make and based on their circumstances. To be honest, most people believe that "Thou shall not kill, steal or bear false witness..."however; just let your 11 year old daughter who just started menses get raped and become pregnate by some stupid brute: Imagine being without food for days and people around you are eating: Imagine telling the "truth" when a lie could save someone's life? For those who can stand up and say I will not abort, steal or lie under these circumstances, I have truly met a genuine, true to the word evangelical.

Author

justjess

Date

2008-08-18T11:19:19-06:00

ID

133154

Comment

Walt: Let's save the deeper philosophical debates for something else, okay? :) There's no proof McCain was listening in on Obama, despite the fact he wasn't in the room on time. It's not like he had CNN on in the Limo. Dems are looking to cover up Obama's lackluster performance on questions of Morality. "Above my Pay Grade" indeed. You don't get free passes when you're President. Ask Truman.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2008-08-18T11:21:31-06:00

ID

133155

Comment

Do we need proof in every case that a known cheater cheats? Alright, Iron, I'll stop. We wouldn't want to let a larger truth get in the way of fantasy.

Author

Walt

Date

2008-08-18T11:40:45-06:00

ID

133162

Comment

I confess that I didn't see the session, debate or whatever that was. I was visiting a grandchild. I couldn't even watch the re-shows of it. I am surprised Barack would agree to such a debate-like competition on these issues. Religion and morality as we know and practice them are too inexact, imprecise, inacurate and careless, crude and loose to take a position that would please the masses of the world, country, state, county, city and many families. Barack doesn't have a shallow view of national or world religion or morality because of his multi-national raising and perspective. As we all know, Americans in general, especially white Ammericans, who by and large believes no one is right but them, will not accept a world view that includes a view wider than the narrow American view. Barack's great intellect, nuances and finesse will be viewed as indecision or lack of an intractable positions on the matters. McCain whose life views probably reflect more of a military view of the world's religion than a moral or religious one knew all he had to do was learn what the typical evangelical thinks, no matter how moronic or dense the view is, then state it, and republicans and evangelicals would rush to make him the next John Paul for this race. After all, he has the look they're familiar with, trusts and are willing to run risk with, even if it gets us another George Bush or worse. I'm angry that Barack thought he could win or tie in this no-win cause of morality and religion with such fickle-minded people looking for mental, moral or religious excuses to hide a greater reason to reject him.

Author

Walt

Date

2008-08-18T12:41:42-06:00

ID

133163

Comment

Walt, you make me laugh. Don't start a religious debate when your candidate loses a debate.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2008-08-18T12:46:04-06:00

ID

133165

Comment

Saddleback is known to be socially conservative; Warren's questions seemed fair, but they were familiar questions for McCain (this is, after all, the same audience he had during the primaries) and unfamiliar questions for Obama (who has not spent much time interacting with crowds consisting almost entirely of white conservative evangelicals). I thought both did extremely well, but McCain seems more comfortable in the excerpts I've seen, which should surprise no one considering who was asking the questions, who was watching, and what the questions were about. The event actually works in Obama's favor to a great extent, as it will raise McCain's expectations--and lower Obama's--for the debates. Until Saddleback, I think everybody expected Obama to decimate McCain in a debate. He still will, I think, but now folks won't be expecting it. Also, this is McCain's home turf. The potential for McCain to gain ground among conservative white evangelicals is limited, but it's a new demographic for Obama to peel away at as November approaches. So even though McCain performed extremely well (his best moment: "The failure of my first marriage," which will actually win him some votes because social conservatives tend to like penitents), this wasn't exactly a coup for him. As far as platform goes, I think this told us absolutely nothing we didn't already know about the candidates' respective policy positions.

Author

Tom Head

Date

2008-08-18T12:52:34-06:00

ID

133166

Comment

Thanks Iron. You make me laugh too as you confirm many of my suspicions.

Author

Walt

Date

2008-08-18T12:54:54-06:00

ID

133167

Comment

make that $97,000 not $9,700. Is this cap because people cap out on their returns on social security benefits?

Author

Izzy

Date

2008-08-18T12:57:19-06:00

ID

133171

Comment

I think that it is grossly unfair to say that McCain won. This was not a debate. These two men were on stage with Rev. Warren seperate and apart from each other. What is in question here is the lie Rec. Warren told about where McCain was, physically, during Barac's interview. Again, he was not in the "cone of silence" supposedly set up for him in advance and since he "won the toss." He was with "sevrete service in a limo.." I'm concerned because so much credit has been given to McCain because of his "military experience." Let's look at this objectively. McCain's Viet Nam/military experience ended very abruptly with his being captured and taken prisoner. He spent five (5) years in prison. McCain is seething with anger and most of his military comments speaks to these unresolved issues. He's not taking psychotrophic drugs for his blood-pressure.

Author

justjess

Date

2008-08-18T14:06:27-06:00

ID

133173

Comment

George Bush needed a microphone secretly scrapped to his body so that he could cheat on Kerry. With McCain's obvious lack of comparable intellect to Barack's, I'm not surprised some cheating went on somewhere, even if a feigned or real accident. The republicans know they will be forgiven for everything. No one with good sense expect anything different from them. Their supporters aren't well-meaning and deceived people. Instead they're purposely participating in this trainwreck for whatever leverage, benefit or largesse they can particularly or generally receive until the crash. If we wind up in another war, I say let the republicans fight their own wars. Can you believe we had the nerves to try to tell Russia they're wrong for encraoching and attacking Georgia? Russia likely was wrong but who with any sense would listen to us. See what we do when you're big and powerful enough to fight us back. Had Russia been Iran, Libya or some other small country we would have attacked them. Yet, Iron and the likes, still don't know why we're losing respect faster than Elizabeth Taylor lost husbands. I have fairly high regards for Pastor Warren. Not many of his type could get me to participate in anything I can't control.

Author

Walt

Date

2008-08-18T14:29:46-06:00

ID

133177

Comment

If religious leaders are going to try to influence elections, their Churches should be taxed. Why should they be exempt?

Author

Tre

Date

2008-08-18T15:24:33-06:00

ID

133180

Comment

Only a neo-Confederate wingnut would call that "get up" a debate. We will have a debate when they are on the same stage answering the same questions that they both receive AT THE SAME TIME (not where McCain CAN get the questions phoned in to him while he chills in his limo). Anyone who thinks that the same person whose integrity is so low that they would accuse their opponent of "losing a war to win an election" would not be desperate enough to take a phone call from one of his aides who DID hear the questions might be a neo-confederate wingnut.

Author

FreeClif

Date

2008-08-18T16:25:03-06:00

ID

133182

Comment

This whole "life begins when the sperm penetrates the egg" deal is just a trap for people who are only concerned about having the government tell women that they must not use birth control, that they must have a bunch of babies that the very same people will not want to pay any extra taxes to ensure those babies can get medical care and early childhood education. Obama was smart not to go in that catch 22 set up. Some of the same anti-abortion wingnuts support the Iraq War, like Pastor Warren did, which kills people who were CERTAINLY alive (until we bombed them).

Author

FreeClif

Date

2008-08-18T16:31:17-06:00

ID

133183

Comment

I'm sure Rick Warren knew Obama didn't believe life begins at the moment of conception, but people on Warren's side of the abortion issue don't seem to understand where pro-choicers stand on that. Full personhood beginning at the moment of conception is a 19th/20th-century idea. Previous religious authorities held that it began at quickening, or about week 20. And the Bible specifically states that killing a fetus is a lesser offense than killing a person, for whatever that's worth. I agree that the conception argument does seem tailor-made for a ban on birth control, but the people who came up with it didn't know enough about how birth control works at the time to know this. It would be nice if proponents of the life-begins-at-conception argument acknowledged that under such a definition, lots of things besides the Pill (natural family planning, the Atkins Diet, etc.) would be reclassified as abortion. The Religious Right is fundamentally an anti-sex movement, not a pro-fetus movement. If these leaders honestly cared about pre-implantation blastocysts, they'd be the world's biggest supporters of LGBT rights. Instead, they encourage heterosexual-only sex and with it the rejection of countless blastocysts, which is an unavoidable side effect of unprotected heterosexual sex between two fertile partners. Re debate, that's semantics. It was the two candidates on the same program answering the same questions, which can be described as a debate or non-debate. I didn't know McCain was in his limo when the questions were being answered; certainly that does raise concerns about how prepared he might have been. Rick Warren is not someone I would consider unbiased in this situation; I don't dislike him but his socially conservative constituency is well established, and pastors tend to do whatever raises pledge money (and, in Warren's case, book sales). Since most of his followers are social conservatives, I'm sure he did everything within his power to please McCain supporters, and I would certainly not put cheating past him. Pastors have done far nastier things to get money than lie about the conditions of a presidential forum.

Author

Tom Head

Date

2008-08-18T16:47:57-06:00

ID

133185

Comment

Whitley: I'll call that a personal attack and call this a day.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2008-08-18T18:15:18-06:00

ID

133191

Comment

Now that I know you were for real Iron, I'm sorry. I was riding in my limo in a cone of oblivion and had no idea anyone might have actually considered an inquisition a debate. I thought maybe the debate statement was actually sarcasm. There is a lot of that on this site. I thought a debate is when you argue back and forth on questions rather than simply answering questions. How do you debate a question like, "Does life begin when the sperm penetrates the egg"? I would rather have a President who realizes the nuance of that question than one for whom everything is simple. We have that now. Who would have their daughter raped by a mad man with a genetic disorder and would not want her to have access to the morning after pill? Only a wingnut without a daughter in my estimation. THAT is an amoral position in my ethical view. Right wingnuts have no right to make that decision for my daughter. Why do conservatives hate the government except when it is telling women what to do with possible fertilized eggs? If they believe in the sanctity of life, why didn't the same hypocrites oppose an unprovoked war of agression which has led to the death or displacement of hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children? They must believe in a god who is o.k. with killing and making homeless children who can walk and talk, but not with aborting possibly fertilized eggs (as with the "morning after" pill).

Author

FreeClif

Date

2008-08-18T20:29:56-06:00

ID

133194

Comment

I have a favorable opinion of Rick Warren. At least, he doesn't come off as a stark-raving mad lunatic in which others like Pat Robertson and the late Jerry Falwell became. To be honest, I could care less about the personal faith of politicians. I'm not advocating that they be immoral people, but what happens when they put themselves up so high on a moral high horse and their transgressions come into the light? That's why I believe you shouldn't look up to Washington or your state capitol rather than looking up to your Higher Power (if you choose to believe in one) or clergy for a sense of morality.

Author

golden eagle

Date

2008-08-18T22:06:17-06:00