With his latest ad, John McCain committed a double-fraud in 30 seconds. In a spot featuring ersatz plumber and best friend for this week Joe Wurzelbacher, McCain called Barack Obama's tax plan for working families "welfare." As his duplicitous spot reveals, John McCain apparently knows very little about payroll taxes. And as it turns out, the self-proclaimed "foot soldier in the Reagan revolution" knows even less about the earned income tax credit (EITC), hailed by the Gipper himself as "the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress."

Predictably regurgitating the bogus Republican talking point proliferated by the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Times, Townhall and mouthpieces of the right, McCain claimed that Barack Obama wants to give tax cuts as welfare to the undeserving:

Leading papers call Obama's taxes "welfare"..."government handouts".

Obama raises taxes on seniors, hard working families to give "welfare" to those who pay none. Just as you suspected, Obama's not truthful on taxes.

Of course, McCain and his acolytes are willfully wrong.

Continue reading »

Jack Cafferty is the only person I've seen on TV so far to make this incredibly important point: If George Bush and John McCain had their way with privatizing Social Security, millions of seniors would be totally screwed right now.

Download | play   Download | play  

"Luckily we have the safety net of Social Security to fall back on…for now.

You may remember just four years ago President Bush made a big push to partially privatize Social Security… You know so we could individually invest our future with the great minds on Wall Street. It failed back then, but that concept could still become a reality. See John McCain also supports supplementing Social Security with private investment accounts. His opponent Barack Obama does not."

HuffPo's John Neffinger writes:

This is something Americans understand: social security is secure, and the stock market is anything but. There are few more personal or dramatic ways to illustrate McCain's terrible judgment than to imagine the nightmare scenario so many Americans would face if McCain and Bush had gotten their way on this -- or if McCain were to get his way as President.

When Wall Street's woes are the top story, this should be our top talking point.

Dead on. Not only is Social Security a winning issue with seniors, it illustrates perfectly how John McCain is walking in lock-step with George Bush. Every sentence spoken this week about Lehman and AIG should be capped off with the line "your SS would be as worthless as they are right now if John McCain had his way."

(h/t Heather)

John McCain has repeatedly attacked Obama over taxes and said that he will not raise taxes under any circumstances---except to fix Social Security apparently. That's what he said on ABC's THIS WEEK. via CNN

George: Is payroll tax increases on the table as well?
McCain: There's nothing that's off the table. I have my positions and I will articulate them, but nothing is off the table.

Now he's saying he won't raise taxes. It's hard to keep up. The wingnut group Club for Growth is howling about this one.

It’s possible John McCain decided he doesn’t really want to be president after all. It’s a tough, demanding job, and maybe McCain came to the conclusion he’s just not up to the task. It seemed like a good idea to him last year, but maybe he bit off more than he could chew. It’s too late for McCain to bow out, but he can ensure his defeat by saying the most breathtakingly dumb things imaginable.

Take Social Security, for example, one of the most popular and successful government programs in American history. McCain recently said he supports privatizing the system. Then he said, he doesn’t want to privatize the system. Then he said he would privatize the system, he just doesn’t want it to be called privatization.

Listening to him talk, it sounded as if John McCain, after more than a quarter-century in Congress, simply didn’t know how the Social Security system works. And this week, McCain proved that he simply doesn’t know how the Social Security system works.

OK, let’s take a deep breath here. Social Security is a pay-as-you-go system. Current workers pay into the system to provide benefits for retirees, and when those workers retire, the next generation will pay their benefits. That’s what Social Security is. That’s how it works. That’s how it’s always worked.

If McCain wants to argue that privatization is a good idea, fine. He’s wrong, but we can have the debate (again). But it appears that McCain is desperately in need of some kind of remedial Government 101 education, because he literally described the Social Security system as a “total disgrace.”

At this point, John McCain is starting to make George W. Bush look like a sophisticated policy wonk.

Continue reading »

In his eternal quest for the Republican presidential nomination, the supposed maverick John McCain has repeatedly reversed long-held positions and compromised purportedly core principles. From the Bush tax cuts, the religious right and immigration reform to overturning Roe v. Wade, proclaiming Samuel Alito a model Supreme Court Justice and bashing France (just to name a few), McCain changed sides as changing political conditions dictated.

But over the past two weeks, McCain's rapid fire, acrobatic flip-flops have produced whiplash, at least for voters. 10 times since the beginning of June, McCain has retreated from, upended or just forgotten positions he once claimed as his own. On Social Security, balancing the budget, defense spending, domestic surveillance and a host of other issues so far this month, McCain's "Straight Talk Express" did a U-turn on the road to the White House.

Continue reading »

In the latest NBC/WSJ poll, released yesterday, there was a noticeable trend when it came to age groups — the younger the voter, the more likely he/she was to support Barack Obama. The only age group in which John McCain excelled was with those over 65 (who prefer McCain to Obama, 48% to 41%).

How can Obama win older voters over? Perhaps McCain’s position on Social Security might help.

As Kombiz Lavasany put it, “Someone should tell John McCain that if you’re going to misrepresent a position you’ve held, you should probably not have held the opposite position on video.”

I remember just after the '04 election and Bush was standing on his pulpit talking about spending all this "political capital" he now owned. And he was going to spend some of it on fixing Social Security. By fix, he meant privatize it, which would have destroyed it much like Bear Stearns got obliterated. The media man crush love for Bush was oozing out of most of the fish wraps and TV sets. MSNBC almost immediately hired Tucker Carlson to prove to Bush that they did indeed love him dearly.

Anyway, all the liberal blogs stuck together and said no way. The idiot media talking heads were screaming at the Democratic Party to come up with some ideas to fix Social Security or it would be bankrupt by 2018 or something. They stood fast and as Duncan points out, it was Nancy Pelosi that told them to shove it.

Dirty f*&king hippie bloggers knew how this game worked, that if the Democrats offered a plan they'd ensure that something would happen and that something would inevitably be pretty much what Bush wanted. Our plan was to not offer any plan, and in fact go nuclear on any Dem who did try to offer a plan.

As the spring of 2005 wore on, some pestered her every week, asking when they were going to release a rival plan. Never. Is never good enough for you?" Pelosi defiantly said to one member

Bush went on his Social Security tour and a funny thing happened. Americans loved Social Security more than Conservatives thought. It's the most hated program from FDR's new deal that Conservatives were trying to dismantle and they figured this would be their only chance to destroy it once and for all. The more Bush toured and shouted his lies about it to his hand picked loyalist crowds that gathered around him, the worse it did in the opinion polls. And that was that.

On the 78th day of a 60-day roadshow, the president's nationwide Social Security tour, even to some of his own aides, has the feel of a past-its-prime Broadway production that has been held over while other, newer shows steal the spotlight.

While there have been plenty of polls suggesting John McCain would enjoy more support from elderly voters than Barack Obama, I’ve taken some solace in the fact that very few voters, in any age group, realize just how wrong McCain is about Social Security. For voters over a certain age, it has the potential to be quite a political problem.

Compounding the problem, of course, is that McCain seems to have trouble keeping track of what his position on Social Security is.

Take his interview this morning on “Live with Regis and Kelly.” Regis Philbin isn’t exactly known as a tough questioner, but this exchange was interesting:

MCCAIN: What should be partisan about the fact that Social Security is going to go broke? I mean, should we be divided up among Republican and Democrat…

PHILBIN: Do you have a plan?

MCCAIN: Yes, sir. It’s gonna require, though, cooperation and participation by the other side. And I’ll reach my hand out…

PHILBIN: Is it privatization of the Social Security program?

MCCAIN: No, no it isn’t. But I would say that I support … I’d put everything on the table to start with … but second of all … young workers ought to be able to put part of their salary, part of their taxes into Social Security, into an account with their name on it. But that would not in any way effect older workers. But you’ve got to have a negotiation.

First, McCain’s factual claims are just odd. Social Security isn’t “going broke.” What’s more, he doesn’t believe in privatization, but rather, wants workers to take their money out of the Social Security system and into private accounts. This, as far as McCain is concerned, is not privatization.

Second, the McCain campaign can’t seem to settle on one consistent position on the policy.

Continue reading »

In 2000, McCain touted a Social Security privatization scheme, not unlike the proposal Bush made in 2005. Eight years later, his campaign decided to go in a different direction. At least, that was the idea.

Sen. McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign Web site takes a different view, proposing “supplementing” the existing full Social Security system with personally managed accounts. Such accounts wouldn’t substitute for guaranteed payments, and they wouldn’t be financed by diverting a portion of Social Security payroll taxes.

Asked about the apparent change in position in the interview, Sen. McCain said he hadn’t made one. “I’m totally in favor of personal savings accounts,” he says. When reminded that his Web site says something different, he says he will change the Web site. (As of Sunday night, he hadn’t.) “As part of Social Security reform, I believe that private savings accounts are a part of it — along the lines that President Bush proposed.”

Oh my. It’s one thing for McCain to flip-flop from his position from 2000; that was eight years ago. But for the candidate to reject his own campaign’s policy position — after a year of campaigning — is just remarkable.

And for McCain to embrace Bush’s biggest domestic policy debacle is even harder to understand. Does the senator not remember the public's reaction in 2005?

What's a debate without a little blogging fun? During the GOP Presidential Debate on MSNBC, a very curious thing happened during a Tim Russert question to Mitt Romney. You can hear what seemed like an on air-whispered answer directed at Romney in some fashion that I can't determine--to a Reagan question about Social Security. It's not clear one way or the other. It might not have been anything at all...

Download | play Download | play (h/t Heather audio amplified)

Russert: Governor Romney, you are a big fan of Ronald Reagan.

Romney: Uh-um

Russert: Will you do for Social Security what Ronald Reagan did in 1983?

<whisper> raise taxes

Romney: I'm not going to raise taxes. What I'm going to do...

Russert: Ronald Reagan raised payroll tax and he also raised the retirement age and he saved Social Security...

Very curious indeed.

Download | play Download | play (h/t Bill W)

CNN clearly is gunning for FOXNews' spot as the propaganda department for the White House and Wall Street. Why else would they need to introduce a segment on the various candidates' stances on Social Security thusly?:

Voters know that Social Security is a financial time bomb that needs fixing. The latest government calculation is that the system will go bust—be out of money-- in 2041. So voters paying in want something done.

Um, no. For the record, Social Security is not a time bomb--nice imagery, CNN. Common sense tells you that--if left alone (granted, a huge IF)--there will always be more people paying into Social Security than SSI is paying out, even with the baby boomer generation. It's a self-sustaining system as FDR designed it. You know who wants you to believe that there is a financial crisis? The Bush White House obviously, but also their cronies on Wall Street, just rubbing their collective hands in anticipation of getting a hold on private accounts to manage.

To keep furthering the false memes, CNN interviews a Giuliani supporter who doesn't believe that Social Security will be available to him (maybe because you keep telling him that, CNN?) and goes through first the Republican candidates' support for Bush's private accounts either in toto or in part. The Democratic candidates? They "just want to raise taxes" (hmmm...taking our framing from Grover Norquist again?). Technically correct, but definitely a Republican framing of raising the cap on income from its current cap of $90,000 a year. As it stands, the person who makes $1,000,000/ year pays the same payroll tax as the person who makes $95,000. Imagine the benefits of lifting the cap.

But giving the general populace (and more importantly in this election year, the electorate) the real facts so that they can make decisions that will be in their best interests, well, that just wouldn't be newsworthy, would it, CNN?

Download | play   Download | play (h/t Heather for vids)

I had originally planned to focus this post on campaign tactics of Barack Obama and his attempt to stand out from the pack by attacking Hillary on the subject of Social Security, which as the NY Times' Paul Krugman points out, is not as big a problem as Republicans would have you believe--in fact, they hate it because it's not a big problem. That said, I do think that Barack's stance of expanding the income cap is a good one.

But then George Will had to chime in and say something so completely through-the- looking-glass bizarre that I had to change my whole focus.  Watch how Will just proves Krugman right:

Sixty-five days from now, the first of 78 million baby boomers begun (sic) to retire. Most Americans who collect Social Security begin to collect it at age 62, which is absurd. We have the public subsidizing increasingly long and comfortable retirement of people for a third to a half of their adult lifetime. Now. That's why one in four voters in 2004 was over 60 years old. The elderly have the biggest stake in the welfare state, which exists to transfer wealth to them. So this is, politically, a loser.

Um, WTF???  The rules of Social Security have changed...while it's true that you can begin collecting at the age of 62, you won't get as much as if you wait until 65.  And so now George is complaining about subsidizing people for up to half of their lives????  How many 120 year olds do you know, George?  Are you suggesting that we should be making those indolent 75 year olds pull themselves up by the bootstraps and get back to work?  Those lazy seniors...

UPDATE: via John Amato: (In the above video clip) Paul Krugman believes that Obama's new approach to Social Security was a foolish endeavor. I thought the same thing. Social Security was the first real defeat I can remember that George Bush suffered with the help of the netroots after he won re-election and told America:

During the first press conference after his re-election, Bush said, "I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. It is my style."

We've come to see what his style represents all too well... Duncan Black explains:

It's true that Obama didn't assert that there was some huge crisis. But the fact remains that he put the idea out there that Social Security had a "problem" which needs to be fixed and that any serious presidential candidate needs to address the issue in clear detail.  So what's the big deal?

Beating back George Bush's plan to kill social security was probably the first major victory for the broadly defined netroots movement. I say that not really knowing if things would have been different if blogs and the like didn't exist, but it seemed like a victory...read on

Well, let's just talk about the cost of having the President travel around talking about privatizing Social Security, shall we?

After long delays, due in part to the refusal of the White House to cooperate, ...a GAO report [was released] assessing the costs to taxpayers of a 2005 White House initiative to support the President’s efforts to privatize Social Security.

The initiative included campaign-style events featuring the President and a roster of top Administration officials as well as the creation of a “Social Security Information Center” in the Department of the Treasury. The analysis shows that the White House effort cost more than $2.8 million, including more than $1.6 million for staging the events, more than $800,000 for Air Force One and Air Force Two travel, and more than $200,000 for the creation of the Treasury Department’s privatization war room and website. The $2.8 million estimate is an underestimate of the true costs, as it does not include the cost of staff time, Secret Service protection, and other expenses.

Representative Henry Waxman's fact sheet on the findings (PDF file) is here.

Noam Scheiber notes this amusing exchange between Karl Rove and Fox News’ Chris Wallace.

WALLACE: But, Mr. Rove, there was tremendous opposition from your own party on immigration reform and, frankly, not much support on Social Security reform.

ROVE: Well, look. On Social Security it’s a tough issue. This president campaigned, talked about it in 2000, talked about it in 2004. But it’s a difficult issue. I understand that. But again, inexplicable opposition from Democrats [made it impossible].

First, notice how Rove seemed to claim a mandate to privatize Social Security based on the fact that Bush “talked about it” during his two campaigns. In other words, as Rove sees it, Bush mentioned privatization, people voted for him, therefore the nation endorsed privatization. The talking point was a White House favorite for a while, despite being demonstrably false.

Second, the fact that Rove considers Democratic opposition to gutting a popular, successful Social Security system “inexplicable” is hilarious. All Bush tried to do was eliminate a bedrock Democratic issue with a reckless plan that the nation hated and couldn’t afford. And yet, it’s “inexplicable” that Dems would oppose it. They’re obviously history’s greatest monsters.

About two weeks ago, we started hearing about the panic and paralysis that had taken over the Justice Department in the wake of the prosecutor purge scandal. “You have no idea,” said one Justice official, “how bad it is here.”

How’s the nation’s federal law-enforcement agency doing now? Apparently, it’s getting worse — the New York Daily News reports that “Gonzales’ closest advisers [have] turned on one another.”

“It’s unreal - it’s open warfare over there,” a former Justice official with close ties to Gonzales’ team told the Daily News.

Gonzales blames Sampson, McNulty blames Goodling, the White House blames McNulty, Republicans on the Hill blame Gonzales, and no one on the right has figured out a way to blame Dems, the media, or MoveOn.org. It’s a wild west, every-man-for-himself environment … and these guys are yet to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Someone practically invented popcorn for a situation like this.