After Obama began hammering John McCain on his support of privatization of Social Security, a senior advisor to the McCain campaign said, "He's not ever talked about outsourcing Social Security into the private sector."
In the first place, that's a lie. Secondly, if he's got nothing to hide, how come he barely addresses Social Security as an issue on his campaign website?
John McCain's maverick image has been all but shattered, and if you analyze his various responses to Social Security reform over the years, you can see that he's playing the same old Republican game.
McCain believes that Social Security is broken. He thinks it's a disgrace that the taxes of young Americans are paying for the Social Security of retired citizens -- although that is precisely how Social Security is intended to work, and how it has operated since it was first created as part of the New Deal.
Perhaps this shouldn't be surprising, since McCain and his advisors have worked tirelessly to undermine or dismantle New Deal programs for the past generation.
What is interesting, however, is that the Republicans have realized that it's not popular to use the phrase "privatization" when it comes to Social Security. So instead, they do little word dance -- calling it "personal retirement accounts" or "personal savings accounts."
Although he's told voters over and over that he will fix spending in Washington, and then he'll fix Social Security -- and he's stressed how it's broken, in a crisis, a pressing issue -- his website has surprisingly little to say about it. His one paragraph stance on Social Security is buried deep on a page called Reforming Washington:
John McCain will fight to save the future of Social Security, and he believes that we may meet our obligations to the retirees of today and the future without raising taxes. John McCain supports supplementing the current Social Security system with personal accounts - but not as a substitute for addressing benefit promises that cannot be kept. John McCain will reach across the aisle to address these challenges, but if the Democrats do not act, he will. No problem is in more need of honesty than the looming financial challenges of entitlement programs. Americans have the right to know the truth and John McCain will not leave office without fixing the problems that threatens our future prosperity and power.
That same page of his website gives considerably more words and space to the need to cut pork barrel spending. But it is this particular paragraph that is BONECHILLING:
A one-year spending pause. Freeze non-defense, non-veterans discretionary spending for a year and use those savings for deficit reduction. A one-year pause in the growth of discretionary spending will be imposed to allow for a comprehensive review of all spending programs. After the completion of a comprehensive review of all programs, projects and activities of the federal government, we will propose a plan to modernize, streamline, consolidate, reprioritize and, where needed, terminate individual programs.
Perhaps that sounds reasonable to some people -- freezing spending to do a review of waste. But hold on a minute --
What is "discretionary spending"?
* Discretionary spending: $1.114 trillion (+3.1%)
o $481.4 billion (+12.1%) - United States Department of Defense
o $145.2 billion (+45.8%) - Global War on Terror
o $69.3 billion (+0.3%) - Health and Human Services
o $56.0 billion (+0.0%) - United States Department of Education
o $39.4 billion (+18.7%) - United States Department of Veterans Affairs
o $35.2 billion (+1.4%) - US Department of Housing and Urban Development
o $35.0 billion (+22.0%) - State and Other International Programs
o $34.3 billion (+7.2%) - Department of Homeland Security
o $24.3 billion (+6.6%) - Energy
o $20.2 billion (+4.1%) - Department of Justice
o $20.2 billion (+3.1%) - Department of Agriculture
o $17.3 billion (+6.8%) - National Aeronautics and Space Administration
o $12.1 billion (+13.1%) - Department of Transportation
o $12.1 billion (+6.1%) - Department of Treasury
o $10.6 billion (+2.9%) - United States Department of the Interior
o $10.6 billion (-9.4%) - United States Department of Labor
o $51.8 billion (+9.7%) - Other On-budget Discretionary Spending
o $39.0 billion - Other Off-budget Discretionary Spending
The Iraq war and the Afghanistan war are not part of the defense budget; they are appropriations.
In other words, a President McCain would shut down the entire federal government, except for the military! No federal education dollars? No federal transportation dollars? No infrastructure? No energy investment? A year is a long time to withhold money from agencies that depend on federal dollars.
This country needs to think VERY HARD about whether someone whose plan includes shutting down the federal government is the person we want running it.
[UPDATE: Some commentators below have pointed out that my headline is misleading, because if you read McCain's statement carefully, he means he won't INCREASE the discretionary spending. In my view, that's tantamount to shutting down the government. It means that Congress won't have an opportunity to present a budget. It means that EVEN MORE of a percentage of our federal budget will go towards Defense. Look at where it is already:]
Here are some quotes from McCain's answer to the Social Security crisis:
At a June 13, 2008, rally.
But, my friends, I will not privatize Social Security, and it's not true when I'm accused of that, but I would like for younger workers, younger workers only, to have an opportunity to take a few of their tax dollars, a few of theirs, and maybe put it into an account with their name on it. That's their money, that's their money. So when I say that, please don't let them twist that have they have others, it's their money, it's their money, it's your money.
Town hall meeting July 7, 2008
Q: Many of the proposals that are being created for people of my generation no longer include Social Security because of the belief it will be not be there. Tell me how you plan to fix it.
A: I'd like to start out by giving you a little straight talk. Under the present set up, because we've mortgaged our children's futures, you will not have Social Security benefits that present day retirees have unless we fix it. And Americans have got to understand that we are paying present retirees with the taxes of present workers today . . . and that's a disgrace."
June 5, 2007 Town Hall meeting:
Q: As our next president, how would you address the problems facing our current Social Security system, specifically, would you raise taxes, or would you allow future generations to have more ownership and control over their retirement by implementing programs like [can't hear this]
A: . . . We need to fix Social Security. . . The only way you're going to fix Social Security is Republicans and Democrats sitting down together, sitting down together the way Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill did back in 1983, and say everything's on the table. I'm against tax increases, I'm against an increase in taxes, I think there's ways to fix Social Security without that . . .
March 12, 2008
Q: Would you advocate for some kind of program like Thrift Savings accounts, which members of Congress currently have, or personal retirement accounts?
A: Yes I would,and I do, and I believe that personal retirement accounts, or personal savings account, is a way for a person at your entry level, as you have years before you're eligible for Social Security, that that would be a way of having your own account, increasing your retirement, and being very beneficial . . . I'd also like to maybe think of giving people a choice, in other words, if they, at your level and your experience and working time, want to invest in it, I think you should be allowed it. If others, particularly older Americans, don't want to have that, then maybe we should give them that choice, maybe that would lower some of the resistance to personal savings accounts.