Would you believe that Republicans, the party that hates the New Deal and can't wait to destroy our social safety nets are now running ads against Democrats for supporting Simpson-Bowles. Who would have thunk it?
The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) tried a political ju-jitsu on Thursday as it sought to turn former state CFO Alex Sink’s attacks on David Jolly on Social Security against her. Sink, the Democratic candidate, takes on Republican Jolly and Libertarian Lucas Overby in a special congressional election for an open seat in Pinellas County on March 11.
On Thursday, the NRCC bashed Sink for saying she supported Simpson-Bowles.
“Alex Sink supports a plan that raises the retirement age for Social Security recipients, raises Social Security taxes and cuts Medicare, all while making it harder for Pinellas seniors to keep their doctors that they know and love,” said Katie Prill, a spokeswoman for the NRCC.
“Sending Alex Sink to Washington guarantees that seniors right here in Pinellas County are in jeopardy of losing the Social Security and Medicare benefits that they have earned and deserve.”
Democrats should never, ever support reforms to our safety nets that take away from the elderly even if they think they will be rewarded for being the grown ups in the room.
I have never understood why Democrats who have to run for office are so wedded to the idea that they will be rewarded for being "the adults in the room" and doing the "hard stuff" like cutting Social Security and Medicare benefits but they do. You'd think they'd remember what happened to them in 2010 when the Republicans ran against the Medicare cuts in the health care reforms by portraying them as monsters turning old people into Soylent Green. But they didn't.
The president may have decided to keep his proposal to cut benefits from his new budget, but it's quite clear from the talking points that they still very much want to get "credit" for being willing to do it. And I suppose if what you want is credit from the Masters of the Universe and wealthy donors that does make some sense. Many of them insist they are willing to kick in some chump change but only if everyone has "skin in the game" (although it must be noted that their "skin" is a small hangnail compared to the full field dress that's being proposed for the elderly poor.)They are also big on "fiscal responsibility" and low debt --- for everyone but themselves. Because they're so good.
But if a Democrat thinks he or she is going to get credit fromvoters or that the Republicans are playing by some kind of Marquis of Queensbury rules that stipulate one mustn't be ever so hypocritical, he or she needs to think it through a little bit more clearly.
Yeah, I'm going to guess that her opponents will get plenty of mileage out of her support for cutting Social Security ... in Florida.
Duncan, who has been whipping up support for increasing Social Security writes:
Shockingly, Republicans are smart enough to understand that people like Social Security.
It's one thing to vote for a "grand bargain" because you think it's on balance a decent compromise, it's quite another to put yourself on record as supporting cutting an extremely popular program when there isn't even anything to vote on.
The great mystery to me is why Dem candidates aren't smart enough to promise to give more stuff to the elderly. The elderly vote. Hell, I'd be happy for candidates to just lie about it, if only to prove that they have half a clue about what might appeal to voters.
