Notable Links



Denver Internet Marketing by Parallel Path

Arvada Boutique Clothing Store Stella B's

Jane Norton Still Spending Her Time Out in Left Field

by: Colorado Pols

Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 11:29:48 AM MST


And starting again out in left field...Jane Norrrr-tonnnn.

We've expressed amazement in this space before at Republican Senate candidate Jane Norton's apparent message strategy we dubbed "Out of Left Field" Norton. And we've said before that it sucks to be Norton's spokesperson. You never know what Norton is going to say, or when she might say it, and more often than not, she's not saying something good.

Well, it's happened again. A new video is now online in which Norton tells a Republican Party forum in Colorado Springs that "with regard to Social Security, it has turned into a ponzi scheme."

Why on earth would Norton say this? There are some 600,000 Coloradans on Social Security, with hundreds of thousands more hoping to be able to cash in sometime soon. Norton might even have a valid point in here somewhere about Social Security needing an overhaul, but you don't compare it to a ponzi scheme!

By talking so critically about Social Security, Norton gives the impression to a lot of voters (which will no doubt be clarified in an attack ad down the line) that she does not support Social Security. And that's not a good idea. We all know that Senior Citizens might forget to put in their teeth, but they never forget to vote; and you absolutely don't want to come across as unsympathetic to one of their primary concerns.

Norton's statement would be bad enough if it were just a one-time thing, but if you are a Republican who views her as your best shot at winning back a Senate seat, you've got to be concerned about Norton's complete lack of message discipline and apparent willingness to say anything, anytime. In the last two months alone, Norton has served up a half-dozen or so giant meatballs for her opponents -- Republicans and Democrats alike -- to use against her later. This is not what you would expect to see from the supposed GOP "frontrunner" in a U.S. Senate race.  
Colorado Pols :: Jane Norton Still Spending Her Time Out in Left Field
Tags: , (All Tags)

Share this post:

Jane Norton Still Spending Her Time Out in Left Field | 48 comments
Dumb Dumb Dumb

Social Security is not illegal. Ponzi schemes are.

SS is not a scam. Ponzi schemes are.

In short no serious person believes SS is illegal or a ponzi scheme because it isn't.


"Why do Republicans get to be stupid and win while whenever we're stupid, we're just stupid?"  sufimarie Feb 2010

That is an excellent article
It's a shame that Jane Norton and her handlers hadn't read it before repeating a year and a half old canard that had already been refuted. From that time magazine article you linked to:

Social Security is morally the polar opposite of a Ponzi scheme and fundamentally different from what Madoff allegedly did. At the height of the Great Depression, our society (see "Social") resolved to create a safety net (see "Security") in the form of a social insurance policy that would pay modest benefits to retirees, the disabled and the survivors of deceased workers. By design, that means a certain amount of wealth transfer, with richer workers subsidizing poorer ones. That might rankle, but it's not fraud.

Conservatives have been railing against New Deal programs and other things FDR initiated for nearly 80 years now. There's nothing wrong with that, it's a philosophical debate, and it's not going anywhere.

But it's not that big of a stretch for Glenn Beck viewers to create in their minds a link from social programs to criminal activity. Look at ACORN.

[ Parent ]
It's an older canard than that
Goes back at least 11 years to an article P.J. O'Rourke wrote for Rolling Stone.
[ Parent ]
Will the Dems use it?
We'll probably see all of this again after the primaries.  Whoever the Dems nominate will have plenty of fodder to keep feeding to reporters (what few are left).
As a man now receiving Social Security,
I wouldn't rush to bash Norton.  I used the same language to describe the system prior to the 1983 Greenspan Commission reforms...simply because it was obvious that the system's finances were ultimately unsustainable given changing demographics.  The 1983 reforms raised taxes and retirement ages, and I now believe the system is sustainable and would no longer call it a "ponzi scheme."  But it is possible for people like Jane to look at the same facts and disagree with me.  The question of whether a financing plan is sustainable or, like a ponzi scheme, depends on an ever-growing body of contributors vs. beneficiaries can be separated from the formal stigma that BICora applied. (ILLEGAL, SCAMS, ETC.)  
I'

[ Parent ]
I'm less worried about the rhetoric
Than I am about what she's hinting at as a proposed alternative. Is she saying that we should eliminate it entirely, and just hope people use that money for their own individual safety net?

Is she suggesting people should be allowed to invest it in the stock market? I can only imagine how that would have turned out in 2008 when the market went into the toilet.

Whether or not I ever get any ROI on the money I've paid into SS, I want to see an alternative policy proposal from Norton, other than talking points from last century.

[ Parent ]
I would.
A Ponzi scheme is guaranteed to fail at some point.  Social Security is sustainable, as you note, with the correct adjustments.  There's no deception involved - it is what it purports to be.

"We're below sharks and contract killers." -- Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), speaking on Congress's 9% approval rating
[ Parent ]
Adjustments?
Like what?  A huge die-off of everyone from 59-up?

It's an unfunded entitlement in the trillions, just like Medicare.  It's a disaster.

[ Parent ]
Why do seniors tend to support Republicans
when Republicans hate Medicare and Social Security? Always been a mystery to me, since most seniors support those programs above just about any other government activity.

"Have a Bobby bar! My dad made them." --Jon Huntsman Jr.
[ Parent ]
Because they talk tough on spending
And even though talk is cheap, it's what people hear.

Non impediti ratione cogitationis.

BTW, I "adduced" this all by myself, you total fucking assclown.
-Laughing Boy
[ Parent ]
Because too many of them already have ``theirs''
And don't give a rip if anybody else does.

Too many also are deluded, with Republican help, into thinking that Medicare isn't government spending but a medical insurance program they've paid for and continue to pay for with their Part B premiums, and that they've paid in to Social Security more than they're taking out.

Not true, I know, but many seniors believe it.
 

Sometimes, I guess, you have to let the inner bitch out.

[ Parent ]
You may be oversimplifying, Gertie,
but you're also on to something. Ever since my mom finally hit the age to get Medicare, she is remarkably less concerned about how others are able to afford insurance.  

"I wouldn't characterize caloric intake as "professional development." c rork
[ Parent ]
I wish I were oversimplifying,
but I live in Mesa County. What I posted is not only the prevailing opinion around here, it's an article of faith.

Yes, those few of us over here who swim upstream need to get out of town more often to realize we don't live in the real mainstream.

Sometimes, I guess, you have to let the inner bitch out.

[ Parent ]
Sadly,
I pretty much thought your comment was dead on. We may be generalizing but not by much.

"I wouldn't characterize caloric intake as "professional development." c rork
[ Parent ]
Thats funny Middle
My Dad asked me "whats the real problem anyway", about health insurance and why does it need reforming ?  He is 70.  I almost snapped.

" The webinar is free, however, there are only 250 spaces available "

Some douche

[ Parent ]
It's not that at all.
We have huge bombs with both programs coming down the pike because very soon we won't be able to pay for what we've promised.

I don't oppose their existence, but I'll pay into it my whole life and probably never see a dime.

[ Parent ]
Again - simple solution
Adjust the equation to reflect the reality.  Problem solved, LB gets SS benefits just as planned.

"We're below sharks and contract killers." -- Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), speaking on Congress's 9% approval rating
[ Parent ]
My generation used to say the same thing, friend.
Tomorrow I get my first SS deposit!  Woo hoo!

My age group is the first to have the standard retirement age jacked up to 66, and those that follow somewhere behind me, to 67.

We are also the first to pay for both our SS and our parent's!  

The easiest way to make SS solvent forever is to eliminate the earnings cap.  

Fixed.  

"Politics determines who has the power, not who has the truth." Paul Krugman, 9/2010

[ Parent ]
Congrats, Paul.
My first SS check arrived last August, 22 months early.  After my private pension was frozen as my employer fought to stave off bankruptcy, early retirement seemed the path of least resistance in a horrendous economy.  I turn 65 in May and my Medicare starts.  It will lower the cost of my retiree pension.  I hope it will likewise solve your health care dilemmas.  
[ Parent ]
No it isn't
The actuary's highly conservative and historically indefensible (even after the current meltdown) economic growth projection is the bulk of the issue. They assume a 2.6% growth rate, but the real rate has always been more like 3%. That doesn't mean it always will be, but it's pretty likely to be close to that.

Minor tweaks now will save benefits forever. You might not retire at 65, you might pay a little more, or people making over the current ceiling ($100k-ish) might pay a little more if the ceiling is raised. But it's fundamentally sound. If we wait until 2037 when benefits will have to be reduced by 25% (according to the actuarial formula that has always been wrong), it will cost a lot more.

Non impediti ratione cogitationis.

BTW, I "adduced" this all by myself, you total fucking assclown.
-Laughing Boy


[ Parent ]
That, too...


"We're below sharks and contract killers." -- Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), speaking on Congress's 9% approval rating
[ Parent ]
It is designed in a way that requires adjustments
While a baby boom generation is working, Social Security takes in more money than it needs; when they retire, it needs more money than it takes in.

The current baby boom retirement trend will drain the fund - and we need to correct for that - but it is by no means "unfunded" or even insolvent in the classic sense.  Saying that it is is dishonest.

Medicare I believe has more serious issues, but the fact that it's underfunded doesn't indicate a fundamental flaw with the system - only a lack of desire on the part of certain parties to adjust the Medicare tax to reflect the current reality of the system (again, high retirement rates, plus above-inflation growth of medical expenses coupled with stagnant wages).

I'd love to see Medicare-for-all, but for the more distrusting fiscally minded folks I'd also strongly support a Medicare-for-all buy-in that was strictly premium-sustained.  I think having the Medicare folks quoting real premiums would help enforce stability in the entire system when it came time for Congress to authorize adjustments to Medicare (for retired folk) taxes.

"We're below sharks and contract killers." -- Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), speaking on Congress's 9% approval rating

[ Parent ]
Yes, but what irritates me Phoenix...
is where did the money go when social security was taking in more than it needed ?  

" The webinar is free, however, there are only 250 spaces available "

Some douche

[ Parent ]
It didn't go anywhere
There's a surplus in the Social Security fund right now.  That surplus will hold us for quite a while, but at some point in the future enough baby boomers will still be up and running that they'll exhaust the surplus and the fund will start running into funding issues and will not be able to fully cover retirees.

Social Security was set up so that the current generation pays for the previous generation's benefits.  That's why people call it a Ponzi scheme.  But it's not, really.  So long as we're still reproducing, the fund will remain solvent, plus or minus adjustments for baby booms (and as twitty noted, to its actuarial numbers).

To convert it so that the current generation pays for its own benefits, we'd have to over-charge the SS tax significantly for some time, essentially double-paying for a generation.  When SS was implemented, they didn't have the luxury of waiting a generation before it kicked in - hence the current system.

"We're below sharks and contract killers." -- Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), speaking on Congress's 9% approval rating

[ Parent ]
I thought about it a bit...
and realized that ever increasing longevity is probably the biggest factor on why forecasts say the system will have a crisis in the future.

That, coupled with the baby boomers (i.e. akin to a "pig going through a python") is a double whammy.

That being said, I am doing my reproducing part : )

" The webinar is free, however, there are only 250 spaces available "

Some douche

[ Parent ]
But you are not a typical voter, Voyageur
Our point is that this is a careless statement to make that will make for a great attack ad against Norton to make Senior Citizens think she is against Social Security. That kind of ad wouldn't work on you, because you know more about this stuff than most of the candidates. But it would certainly upset the vast majority of voters.
[ Parent ]
attacks on Social Security are two-edged swords, pols
More people under 40 b elieve in flying saucers than believe SS will be there when they need it.  That's doubly wrong, since only fools believe in flying saucers and ss will be there, in some form, as long as Congress wants re-elected.  but if you attack somebody for being soft on social security, you see that candidate go up in the ratings with under 40s.
Bush made exactly that calculation when launching his stupid privatization plan.
[ Parent ]
Sorry...
It's exactly what it is.  I have no illusion that when I come of age that there will be no money left in SS.

I'd give a ball to be able to pull myself out of the pay-in and invest on my own.

opting out

You have to work in one of the few jobs that allow you to opt out or you would have to emigrate.  

"Why do Republicans get to be stupid and win while whenever we're stupid, we're just stupid?"  sufimarie Feb 2010

[ Parent ]
opting out to invest
A) It's not an investmetn plan.
It's insurance.

B) There are some jobs wehre you can opt out. Or you can emigrate.

"Why do Republicans get to be stupid and win while whenever we're stupid, we're just stupid?"  sufimarie Feb 2010

[ Parent ]
Tax vs. Insurance
Sorry, it is not "Insurance". US Supreme Court cleared up this "misunderstanding" in the 1960's court cases involving the IRS vs. The Old Order Amish. The Amish contended that their religious beliefs prohibited engaging in payments into "insurance". IRS and Supreme Court acknowledged SS is NOT insurance as it is not based on valid acturial data, thus it is nothing more than a tax.
[ Parent ]
Do you have a source?
Your conclusion sounds exactly backward to me - the implication being that the Amish would pay into SS because they pay "taxes". Except they don't pay in to SS because they are exempted by religious objection to insurance.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc...

Members of certain religious faiths
(1) Exemption
Any individual may file an application (in such form and manner, and with such official, as may be prescribed by regulations under this chapter) for an exemption from the tax imposed by this chapter if he is a member of a recognized religious sect or division thereof and is an adherent of established tenets or teachings of such sect or division by reason of which he is conscientiously opposed to acceptance of the benefits of any private or public insurance which makes payments in the event of death, disability, old-age, or retirement or makes payments toward the cost of, or provides services for, medical care (including the benefits of any insurance system established by the Social Security Act). Such exemption may be granted only if the application contains or is accompanied by-

(bold is mine)

PS- LB: you could also become Amish.

[ Parent ]
Amish and Social Security insurance

I'm happy to accept your apology but I don't think you're right.

The Amish do pay taxes.

The Amish do not pay into Social Security because of a religious objection to insurance.

http://agebb.missouri.edu/agta...

If you can cite that Supreme Court case you mentioned- I'd be interested to see it.

"Why do Republicans get to be stupid and win while whenever we're stupid, we're just stupid?"  sufimarie Feb 2010

[ Parent ]
Ragnar, stop reading Ayn Rand and read the law.
The real name of Social Security is Old Age, Disability and Survivor's Insurance.  What part of "insurance" don't you understand?
 It does provide disability insurance for you.  It does provide benefits for your survivors.  It even entitles your spouse to benefits equal to half of yours -- without reducing yours -- even if she never paid in herself.  (she is entitled to her own if she did pay in and they are greater than half of yours.)  If you die before her, her benefit goes up to match yours.  (survivors insurance)  
[ Parent ]
"not based on valid acturial data"
Say, wha??????

I realize that you are paraphrasing and not quoting.

However, the SS folks probably have a lot more actuaries and demographers than any company around.  

"Politics determines who has the power, not who has the truth." Paul Krugman, 9/2010

[ Parent ]
And if you'd done that when Bush and the Republicans proposed it
your portfolio would be worth a fraction of what it was.

And if you want to double down, if congress had followed the tea party wing of the GOP in 2008 and not bailed out the banks, we'd be living through a depression with the Dow bumping along at about 2000. How would your hypothetical portfolio look then?

But neither event happened, so we won't know how bad it could have gotten.

Its just like Further, but with tax cuts! - Fidel's Dirt Nap

[ Parent ]
That's kind of silly
How could there be "no money left" in Social Security?  All the workers younger than you will still be paying in.  At worst you might get a smaller check than the baby boomers. But Social Security can't run out of money unless it is completely abolished.
[ Parent ]
Left field?
I guess from certain perspectives in a stadium left field would be on the right...

Non impediti ratione cogitationis.

BTW, I "adduced" this all by myself, you total fucking assclown.
-Laughing Boy
Who owns Interim Senator Bennet
Contributor   Total   Indivs   PACs  
Brownstein, Hyatt et al $44,101 $42,101 $2,000
Union Pacific Corp $38,000 $28,000 $10,000
Comcast Corp $30,350 $21,350 $9,000
Infoture Inc $24,000 $24,000 $0
Hogan & Hartson $22,950 $21,950 $1,000
Liberty Media $22,950 $12,950 $10,000
Qwest Communications $21,900 $16,400 $5,500
Apollo Advisors $21,600 $21,600 $0
Ares Management $17,900 $17,900 $0
Patton Boggs LLP $17,800 $12,800 $5,000
Morrison & Foerster $15,900 $15,900 $0
Wilmerhale Llp $14,600 $14,600 $0
Aea Investors $14,400 $14,400 $0
Kirkland & Ellis $14,300 $12,967 $1,333
Gotham Capital $12,000 $12,000 $0
Centerbridge Partners $11,600 $11,600 $0
Level 3 Communications $11,350 $10,350 $1,000
UAL Corp $11,300 $10,300 $1,000
Bow River Capital $11,200 $11,200 $0

open secrets

Why don't you post Jane Norton's contributors then we can compare who owns who?

[ Parent ]
That would be too "truthy" for Libby.
Besides, posting about Norton would be on topic for this thread.

No way Libby is going to post on topic.

Today, you're either going to get better or you're going to get worse, but you're never going to be the same.  Which one will it be?  --Joseph V. Paterno

[ Parent ]
Why should today be any different than the other 364? n/t
[ Parent ]
It could happen
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Its just like Further, but with tax cuts! - Fidel's Dirt Nap
[ Parent ]
Shock!
Brownstein, Hyatt pours money into the campaign of a Democratic senator in Colorado!

That might have been news 20 years ago, Lib, but it's not news now.  

[ Parent ]
So what is her SOLUTION?
I'm getting really sick and tired of all these Republicans criticizing without offering solutions.

Social Security is a "Ponzi scheme"? What is your SOLUTION? Abolish it? Increase payroll taxes? (Gee, I wonder if there might be a reason we never hear a solution...)

Abolish the Colorado Department of Education, like McInnis has suggested? WHY? And what is your alternative SOLUTION to providing the real support that CDOE currently provides to schools?

Vote no on health care reform? Well, what's your SOLUTION? (And don't repeat "tort reform" - that's a joke as an overall solution, AND it's been incorporated into Obama's plan.)

All we hear is NO NO NO. That's not responsible governance: it's a temper tantrum.

"Why not do the right thing for the American people, even though it's not exactly what we want." - Speaker Boehner

best friends mean i pull the trigger...
here's the deal with Norton:

she's trying to court the fringy right anti-government moron class.  the cognitive dissonance in the tea party is cacophonous, i.e. "get your government hands off my medicare".  

odds are she took a look at her staffers' paychecks and is going line by line saying "wait a second, the gummint is taking money!  also, madoff!  also, ponzi scheme!"  there's no logic here, she's simply trying to keep the anti-government anger rolling into her camp, and it's not an entirely stupid strategy.

think of it this way: her base is bored with her, and has no bench or alternative candidate who could beat either Romanoff or Bennet.  so, in order to mobilize voters, especially in the primary, she has to charge right and play on the current anti-government everything.  

if it's medicare, it's socialized medicine and private insurance would be better.  if it's SS, it's a ponzi scheme and privatizing it would be better.  if it's education, (ironically Republican policies are destroying education right now [NCLB] but there's an argument to be made that this was done on purpose to ruin the public system of education while making McGraw Hill & Houghton Mifflin rich as all fuck [do you guys hear those helicopters???  they sound black]) it's a broken system that would belong better in private hands.

there's no logic, and there doesn't need to be, because the constituency doesn't operate on logic.  they work on emotions, hate, anger, and misinformation (read: lies).

okay i'm ranting.  h/t Steve Harvey.

"NOW IS NOT THE TIME TO GIVE UP FIGHTING FOR HEALTH CAFE WITH A PUVBLIC OPGION" - Senator Michael Bevnett

Dude
you are my kind of political analyst.

This makes sense - and it's why we're in a dog fight for the seat, though apparently most of us don't know it yet.  

The reenergized Colorado R's are feeling confident and, well, energized. We're red again is how one neighbor described it.  The D's are jerking around in a primary arguing over... endorsements and donations.


"Why do Republicans get to be stupid and win while whenever we're stupid, we're just stupid?"  sufimarie Feb 2010

[ Parent ]
Jane Norton Still Spending Her Time Out in Left Field | 48 comments
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?






Advertise Here!
ads@coloradopols.com


Active Users
Currently 14 user(s) logged on.

Search




Advanced Search


Colorado Pols Network


Jeffco Pols
Summers, Kerr to Host Joint Town Hall on Saturday
Jeffco Pols
Joe Coors Announcing CD-7 Run Today
Jeffco Pols
Roybal Fined for Wiechman Loan
Jeffco Pols
  More >

Denver Pols
Poll: Who Will Win the HD-1 Primary?
Denver Pols
Hancock Rolls Out Economic Development Plan
Denver Pols
Michael Hancock Wades into ASSET Debate
Denver Pols
  More >













RSS 2.0



Pols Gets Mobile: ColoradoPols.com/mobile/

Colorado Pols is on Twitter: twitter.com/coloradopols

Email Pols


How to Write a Diary That Will Make the Front Page



Terms of Use/Privacy Policy



Pols Posting Policies



The Pols Penalty Box



Yard Signs!



The Pols "Mailbag"

Mailbag #1



Relevant Links

The Big Media Blog

Blog It Right

Blog For Growth

Blogometer

Business Word

Colorado Capitol Journal

Colorado Center on Law and Policy

Colorado Democratic Party

Colorado Ethics Watch

Colorado Independent

Colorado Labor Blog

Colorado Veterans for America

Colorado Legislature

Colorado Lib

Colorado Libertarian Blog

Colorado Media Matters

Colorado Progressive Coalition

Colorado Republican Party

Colorado Secretary of State

Colorado Senate Dems

Colorado Senate GOP

Colorado Young Democrats

Commentary Today

Coyote Gulch

CU Democrats

Curious Stranger

Daily Kos

Dan Willis-Rumors

Dem Notes

Democracy for Colorado

Denver Politics

East Boulder County Politics

Ed Stein Ink

Election Neutrality Now

eleXn

George in Denver

Great Education Colorado

Head First Colorado

The Hotline Political Network

Junction Daily Blog

Left in the West

Liberal and Loving It

Maintain Educational Standards in Colorado

Mount Virtus

MyDD

National Journal

On Call

Peak Dems

Political State Report

Progress Now

Prometheus

Project Vote Smart

Radio Free Denver

Senate Guru

Slapstick Politics

Steam Powered Opinions

Square State

Stygius

TalkLeft

The Thicket

The Bell Policy Center

The Hypothetical Wren

ThomasMC.com

Toilet Paper Online

TRACER Campaign Finance

View From a Height

Walter in Denver

Wash Park Prophet

Western Democrat


 
Colorado Pols is wholly owned by Colorado Pols, LLC
webmaster-at-coloradopols.com

Powered by: SoapBlox