U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez

(D) George Stern

(R) Sheri Davis

50%↑

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Manny Rutinel

(D) Yadira Caraveo

50%

40%↑

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
July 11, 2006 06:56 PM UTC

O'Donnell Social Security Admission BIG Problem

  • 40 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

Republican Rick O’Donnell is awaiting the results of the three-way primary in CD-7 to see who his opponent in the general election will be, but he admitted yesterday that he already has a big problem on the horizon. From the Rocky Mountain News:

Republican congressional candidate Rick O’Donnell tried to take the steam out of anticipated attack ads by acknowledging Monday that he wrote an essay 11 years ago calling for the abolishment of Social Security.
O’Donnell, 36, said he has since changed his position and wants voters to know, before Democrats slam him, that he now favors fixing Social Security, not abandoning it.

His essay, titled “For Freedom’s Sake, Eliminate Social Security,” was published in February 1995, when he was editing American Civilization, a publication of Newt Gingrich’s Progress and Freedom Foundation.

“As we bury the rest of the welfare state in preparation for the 21st century, it is time to slay the largest government ‘entitlement’ program of all, Social Security,” O’Donnell wrote.

Democrats said Monday that they knew about the essay and had discussed how they might exploit it later in the 7th Congressional District campaign that’s expected to be one of the hardest-fought in the country. They said O’Donnell’s stated change of heart shows he is trying to portray himself to voters as less right-wing than he really is.

The essay advocates telling Americans that Social Security “won’t be there for them,” and that government “could then institute a mandatory, private savings scheme” that would let Americans choose where to invest their retirement savings.

“There is an even more important moral question raised by the government’s role as chief provider in old age,” the essay continues. “It sends the un-American message that it is not your responsibility to take care of yourself.”

Does O’Donnell have the right to change his mind? Absolutely — but that doesn’t change the fact that this old essay of his is going to be the centerpiece of a devastating series of attack ads from whichever Democrat emerges from the CD-7 primary. O’Donnell won’t be able to explain to everyone that he has changed his mind, but it’s wise to make the effort now before the attack ads start coming.

Comments

40 thoughts on “O’Donnell Social Security Admission BIG Problem

  1. I don’t think O’Donnell has any explaining to do, from a policy perspective.  It’s a good idea to get rid of social security, at least in favor of something that truly takes care of the indigent and lets the rest of us keep our paychecks and retire the way we want.  It’s a shame when good policy is sacrificed at the altar of political correctness.  (Yes – I know this is politics and you have to accomodate political reality, so spare the comments.)

    1. I don’t think so.

      Social Security is the biggest success story of American government in the 20th century.  It’s the reason your grandma isn’t fishing through dumpsters for food.

      Despite all the Jon Caldara rhetoric they’ve been fed, Americans recognize this.  That’s why Social Security is a very popular program.  And it’s why Rick O’Donnell will have to defend himself every day for the next five months.

      1. Apparently, popularity is a good measure for the merit of a federal entitlement?  And if “biggest success story” means huge burden on young workers with little promise of return, you’re right.

        And for the record, my Grandma doesn’t fish through dumpsters because of her SSA check, it’s because of her family and solid  financial planning.  Or, go up to Black Hawk and ask the grandmas chugging away on the nickel slots where the money came from.  Your tax dollars at work!

        1. The only thing truly threatening me or my son getting Social Security benefits in the future is the potential that you right-wing lunatics will destroy it.

          I guess having a basic level of guaranteed income when you’re old isn’t enough.  Clearly, we need to toss that and replace it with a system where financial services corporations can make a fat profit off her retirement investments, before Grandma gets her check.

          Because people living and dying in poverty isn’t the real problem.  No, the real problem is corporations who aren’t making enough money.  “Entitlement programs” are fine if the recipients are the rich, eh?

    2. Note to Brad Jones, this is a poltical site where people come to debate, discuss, state opinion and generally COMMENT. Peole have been known to argue, shout (metaphorically) scream and yell at each other. It is the glorious discourse of POLITICS. Did you just stumble onto this site and think it was a place that only you could pontificate? Is your voice the only one to be heard, your opinon the only one that is valid? You must fancy yourself as quite the omnipotent voice. Did you assume that your ideas are the only valid one’s on this site? You are mistaken sir, there are many who post here that I don’t agree with but as Voltaire said, “I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Spare comments are nice, thin comments are attractive, but for you to declare that you desire NO comments is an abomination. To paraphrase Shakespeare, ‘We few, we happy few, we band of brothers; For he to-day that sheds his blood with me in debate, opinion and discourse, Shall be my brother (and sister)’.

  2. Well, I would have voted for him if he didn’t take back his essay.

    Social Security and Medicaid are going to ruin the American budget and the Republic in itself.

    Entitlement programs are nothing more than empty promises and the future grandmas’ inability to save money because keeping up with the Joneses and having credit card debt now is more important, is keeping people from having a decent retirement and taking away the incentives for responsible people like me to continue to save and invest (no, I am not wealthy by any means).

    Social security is so great that I think the teachers unions should abandon their PERA accounts and switch to it.  Who is with me!?

    1. Social Security and Medicaid are going to ruin the American budget and the Republic in itself.

      Massive tax cuts for the already-rich have destroyed our budget, in addition to this costly and pointless war –oh, I forgot, they cleverly hide that from the general budget now.

      Social Security faces the potential to fall slightly behind, taking in only 80% of what it pays out by sometime in the year 2040.  There are a variety of options we have to fix the shortfall before then, none of which involve drastic measures.

      1. eliminating or raising the ceiling on taxable wages would take care of any future shortfall.  The burden for funding SS falls disproportionately on the middle class wage earner.  Someone earning in excess of $150K pays a smaller portion of their wages in SS tax than someone like me.  The higher the income, the smaller the percentage.

        Moreover, if income was taxed and not just wages, the shortfall would be a thing of the past forever.

        1. Anyone earning $94,200 in wages for 2006 will pay the full SS Tax on those wages, however, anyone earning above that amount will only pay the SS Tax on the first $94K  Everything above that is not taxed making the effective tax rate lower.  The higher your wage income the lower the actual percentage paid.

  3. O’Donnell getting this out now is brilliant.  At least at 24 O’Donnell was thinking about policy, as opposed to what most 24 year olds were doing. 

  4. ROFLMAOPIMP…… It sounds as though Little Ricky was channeling Barry Goldwater circa 1964 when he wrote his essay.
      This is the kind of position which a Republican running in CD 4 or CD 6 could survive but not in CD 7, given the affiliation breakdown.
      If this is any indication of O’Donnell’s thinking and if there’s any more stuff like it out there, no matter how badly Ed and Peggy trash one another, the eventual Democratic nominee can still win this seat. 
      Hell, even Herb would stand a chance against Rick “Let’s Abolish Social Security” O’Donnell.

  5.   Recanting his position on abolishing social security may only make things worse for Little Ricky.  A portion of the GOP base (the economic libertarians) still believes that social security should at least be privatized, if not completely abolished.  By recanting on his previous position, he alientates that part of the Republican base.
      More importantly, O’Donnell comes across as just another pol willing to say anything to anyone to get anywhere. Both Ways Bob and Every Way Ed, may I introduce Round About Rick……

  6. “For Freedom’s Sake, Eliminate Social Security,” Ricky’s fiesta is officially over. Turn off the lights, it’s over. I can hardly contain myself just waiting to see the ads with that as the title. Yeah, Ricky, you’re right. God forbid we should take have a system in place that we all pay into that takes care of the elderly, which someday, you will be, too.

  7. Does AARP have a 527?  If so, has it targeted Colo. C.D. 7 yet?  My advice to Round About Rick:  be afraid, be very afraid of PO’ing old people when it comes to social security. They don’t call social security the “third rail” in American politics for nothing…….

  8. … you think you’ll be collecting any benefits from SocSec 30 years from now.

    And before you do raise your (virtual) hand, who do you think is going to be paying for it?

    SocSec has been a Ponzi scheme from Day 1.  It’s been robbed multiple times over the decades, and now that better medicine allows people to live longer, you’ll soon need to be 75 or so before you can begin collecting. 

    SocSec DOES need to be ‘fixed’.  But NEUTERED is a better way of saying it.

    1. The more Republicans we have on record admitting they want to destroy Social Security, the better.  Rick O’Donnell just cratered his candidacy with this.  I look forward to more of this type of honesty from the GOP.

      You do recall Bush and Co. spent most of last year trying to generate support for replacing SS with private accounts, don’t you?  They used false numbers to make a deceptive argument, and no one bought it then.  Not even most Republicans.

      So please don’t back down.  Next you can move on to advocating for more orphanage construction, and perhaps creating new debtors’ prisons.  Then we’ll re-elect President McKinley.  Awesome.

  9. Privatization.  It’s the new frame.  O’Donnell hasn’t changed his view, he just can’t say it outright because he’ll be crucified in the election if he does.  I notice he’s being a bit hesitant on just what he’d do to “fix” Social Security…  Maybe that’s because he doesn’t have a plan that’s better than leaving it alone, and privatization has been a complete flop with the American public.

  10. I think it is pretty obvious what O’Donnell believes on this issue.  This is a classic case of flip-flop as far as rhetoric goes.  He does not mention Social Security on his website on the “Issues” page.  I would not be surprised if Rick stays as far away from this issue as he can.

    There are some on the Right that feel very passionate about killing Social Security.  But I am confidant that most Americans want it saved, President Bush proved that.

  11. I, being a died hard conservative, would like to simply ask mother government for all the taxes I have paid them, back in a one lump sum.
    Then I’ll invest it and they can go to hell.
    Think our all knowing compassionate government would do that? Shit no……..
    My mom paid in all her life, died of lung cancer at 58 and for some strange reason she didn’t get to draw a dime of it….
    My dad did the same, paying all his life, and got to draw about one years worth of measley $1200.00 checks from them bastards. And because he died only a week or so into the month, we had to mail that greedy entity a check for 2/3 of the month that he was paid for, but couldn’t keep because he was dead.

    How about we let those that want the government to invest their money go right ahead. The rest of us can invest our own money ourselves? Oh, and they can keep the money I’ve paid in over the past 36 years. I’d start fresh just to avoid having to pay anymore.

    Screw Social Security………….

    1. My dad died three weeks ago at age 65. He was a farmer and ag/propane driver most of his life and other than life insurance and the farm income, my mom has very little. She will be receiving his SS for life but is required to give up hers. Trust me, his is much better than hers so I think she’s getting a better deal but the amount per year is still under poverty level.

      My dad paid in for alot of years and I know he’d be relieved that my Mom is getting something after he’s gone. She was his number one concern, which is why he took out several policies. He had chronic leukemia so getting any life insurance was almost impossible. As far as SS, I think he saw less than a year of payments.

      I’ve wised up and started an IRA matching plan two years ago. I’m self-employed so it’s also a tax writeoff. It isn’t much but it’s something. I think most folks know that SS isn’t going to see them through when they retire but for alot of folks, it’s all they have. Self-investments can be risky and markets can crash. I’m not ready to throw the baby out with the bath water just yet.

    2. My dad died three weeks ago at age 65. He was a farmer and ag/propane driver most of his life and other than life insurance and the farm income, my mom has very little. She will be receiving his SS for life but is required to give up hers. Trust me, his is much better than hers so I think she’s getting a better deal but the amount per year is still under poverty level.

      My dad paid in for alot of years and I know he’d be relieved that my Mom is getting something after he’s gone. She was his number one concern, which is why he took out several policies. He had chronic leukemia so getting any life insurance was almost impossible. As far as SS, I think he saw less than a year of payments.

      I’ve wised up and started an IRA matching plan two years ago. I’m self-employed so it’s also a tax writeoff. It isn’t much but it’s something. I think most folks know that SS isn’t going to see them through when they retire but for alot of folks, it’s all they have. Self-investments can be risky and markets can crash. I’m not ready to throw the baby out with the bath water just yet.

        1. You are lucky George isn’t blogging, he hates multiple posts:)

          I still don’t get the objection to privatizing a portion of SS.  I would have done it in a NY minute. It was an optional program, my money, my risk.  I’m not sure if it was the successful scare tactics by AARP and Dems or a bad sales job by Bush, but I still like the idea.  It wouldn’t have solved the upcoming shortfall but at least I could have had some control over my own money. You’re a reasonable minded Dem Middle, where am I going wrong here?

          1. (And yes, thank the Lord, George ain’t online.)

            I can actually see privatizing a portion. Hell, in a way, that’s basically what I’m doing by setting up an IRA account–taking a portion of my income and investing it and getting a tax break to boot.

            Between being a history major in college and listening to my grandparents talk about living through the Great Depression, I suppose my fear of bad investments in the market are what lead me to think that at least part of SS should remain in place. Ideally, I’d like to see a blend of both Social Security and privatization.

            Mostly I just see folks who want all or nothing, on either end of the spectrum, and that makes no sense to me.  To me, paying into SS is sort of like another IRA. I know it’s there, at least for now–I keep getting updates of my “worth” every year, ho ho.

            Frankly I think the hype is what killed any chance of a serious discussion. There was such an incredible, dire prediction slant taken by Bush and several proponents that the scare tactic backfired, in my opinion. We all know that SS needs some serious work but fudging the facts just shut down any rational discussion on the whole topic.

            Then again, what do I know? I’m a Publicrat and we aren’t known for our platforms just yet, just our two-drink limit policy.

            1. You are right, I forgot about Bush trying to tie the SS shortfall in with privatizing.  Bad move, two separate issues.  I have no problem with my SS insurance policy, but I have an IRA as well.  Even with the downturn in the economy after the dot com bust, I’ve still averaged 11%, so I’d take my chances with an small SS diversion. 

              1. I just look at the monthly update to see how much is in there. I have no idea what Franklin’s doing with my money. Thank God I have a financial advisor (I’m not a complete idiot) but honestly, I’ve no clue what’s happening, other than what my monthly and matching contribution is. Yeah, I’d be willing to invest a portion of my SS, as long as I had my financial advisor doing it for me.

                About that 2-drink minimum, I’m wondering if we shouldn’t revisit the idea and bump it to three? Hmmm?

                1. We should experiment with how many drinks it takes to agree on hot topics.  That’s where we set the minimum.  It may take a number of trial runs, so keep the bottled water and aspirin on hand. 

            2. That’s the main reason why privatization isn’t a good idea. Not saying the current mess with SS is good, but imagine millions of wage earners who are unsophisticated in the ways of the market – you know, putting their eggs all in one basket because that stock just keeps going up, up, up, up… and then it all comes crashing down.

              It doesn’t have to be a crooked company cooking the books. Think back to the dot-com boom. Most of those companies were just plain mismanaged, but the market – then comprised entirely of people who knew, or should have anyway, that they were taking a risk – ran up their prices sky high because of all the hype. And we all know what happened to most dot coms not named Amazon.

              So, imaging millions of retirees who have pissed away their privatized SS money on bad investments. (Yes, millions of others have done just fine in this scenario.) Imagine that you are among them. (No, just because you think this is a good idea doesn’t mean you’ve convinced me of your investing prowess.) What now? Go live with your children? Hmmm… That might work for a few, but I doubt many kids will be happy about it, especially if they’re still dealing with teens or college age kids of their own.

              Will churches and charities take care of the rest? Hmm… you think they have the resources? They may be willing, but how many are able?

              You don’t think that’s likely? The vast majority or people are not that sophisticated when it comes to investing. I knew lots of people at work with 401(k) money but few with IRA’s. Guess what, they typically put their 401(k) money in mutual funds, ones that the company did business with… OR they invested in their own company, just like the fine folks at Enron.

              There’s a whole lot of educating to be done before even minimal privatization could safely be implemented.

              Do I have any answers? Hell no. That’s what my elected representatives and their think tank buddies should be doing. I’ll just do my part – pay attention to the debates, think hard about the proposed ideas, then write them (the reps, not the think tank eggheads) to let them know what I think. Oh, and maybe share it with all of you.

              1. If you are a rational investor, good for you! (That’s serious, not sarcastic.) It’s not easy, especially in this day and age of day-trading, which is gambling, not investing.

                1. but I’ll give it a shot anyway.  The percentage of privatized SS proposed was low, so no one would lose all benefits accrued.  Again, it would be an available option, no one would be forced to privatize.  I trust my own money management more than I trust the government with my money.  Where is that “lock box” when you need it?

                  1. Admittedly, I was giving a kind of extreme scenario, but you know the elderly and their money. Even 5% is big when you’re on a fixed income.

  12. Gee, you don’t think that everyone around O’Donnell, the NRCC and the DCCC knew about what he wrote 11 YEARS AGO!  Those DCCC boys and girls back in DC must be very upset about not being able to use it as a surprise now. 

    Robert Byrd, that venerable Senator from West Virginia was once in the KKK, I guess he is a flip flopper now as well.  Or locally, what about that good old former state senator that switches parties to vote for Perlmutter, what do the DCCC shills think of him, how about “Waffling Wattenberg?”  And let’s not forget Every Way Ed (I like that one whoever came up with it!), or Part-Time Resident Peggy.

  13. Social Security Solvency
    According to the Social Security actuaries, the OASDI trust funds are not solvent for the long term primarily as result of demographics—low fertility rates and eligibility of the oldest baby boomers for early retirement in 2008. Income, excluding interest earned on the trust fund assets, will be less than outlays beginning in 2017. The first year that outgo exceeds income, including interest, will be 2027. After 2027, the trust fund assets (held in the form of Treasury securities) will be redeemed until they are depleted in 2041. (The Congressional Budget Office projects the depletion date will be ten years later in 2052.7) At this time, because there are still workers paying into Social Security, about 74 percent of promised benefits can be paid.

    The actuarial deficit of the OASDI trust funds for the 75-year period beginning 2005 is 1.92 percent of taxable payroll. According to the Social Security Trustees, solvency for the next 75 years could be achieved by a permanent 12.8 percent reduction in benefits starting in 2005. Alternatively, solvency for the next 75 years could be achieved by increasing the current Social Security tax rate (FICA) from 12.4 percent to 14.32 percent.

    From:  http://www.aarp.org/research/socialsecurity/benefits/aresearch-import-352-FS39R.html#howmuch

    *********************

    Lovely picture, isn’t it?  Keep it up, ukkibuki – keep selling that snake oil.

  14. … give me back what I’ve paid in, and I’LL take charge of my retirement, without all the red tape and snags that come with the Government’s Ponzi Scheme.

    As of 2005, the AVERAGE income to a retired worker is a “whopping” $955 per month.  If you want to add (even out of need) to that income, guess what?  YOU CAN, but you forfeit the SocSec payment.

    Great plan.

    You folks that want to continue to depend on the government to spoon-feed you money that YOU HAVE ALREADY HAD TAKEN FROM YOU can do that all you want – all I’d like is the opportunity to OPT OUT OF THE PONZI SCHEME.

  15. It’s revealing that you do not voice a specific topic in your screed, only a virulent distaste for my existence. No dispute of a point made or not made, reasoning made soundly or faulty logic, lack of ability; only that my singular voice is so loud (though it seldom written much less read) it deafens your anemic perceptions. I apologize, my feeble-hearted jester, for confounding you such that you make no comment nor point and that my tiny words can so inspire your misdirected wrath.

    I have never, nor shall I ever, state that no one is entitled to express their idiosyncratic views, however misbegotten or brilliant said may be. So do not attempt to misrepresent my words (that you could). I applaud intelligently expressed informed opinion personally over reactionary regurgitations; and that is my cross to bear (that I carry willingly). If I offend your tender sensibilities, simply do not read my proffered utterances; they elude comprehension at any rate, so why attempt the impossible.

    And if you state, “he calls me out” or “he insults,” bear witness that you hurl your insults at me. I have not provoked you, merely reacted to the jibes.  

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Gabe Evans
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

40 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!