Although it's not on Tim Walberg's rarely-updated YouTube page, on October 20, Chris Gautz brought us one of the Walberg campaign's latest television ads:



Or, the short version: "Mark Schauer is lying!"

I don't know how effective this will be. Rather than countering with actual rebuttals to Schauer's attacks, he's just issuing a blanket "He's lying!" as if that's enough. I don't know if it is.

Of course, Chris Gautz, who's quoted in the ad, notes:

At the end of the short ad, it says Walberg opposes privatizing Social Security, though he told our paper last month he supports giving future workers the option of saving part of their payroll taxes in personal accounts.

At a recent debate in Adrian, Walberg said "I have never taken a position to privatize Social Security."

I guess he decided to take a position-- though, it's not the position he's held before.

Labels: 2008 Election, Advertising, Issues, Mark Schauer, Social Security, Tim Walberg

(Thanks to the reader who e-mailed me about this.)

Some regular readers of this blog and of Chris Gautz's work at the Jackson Citizen Patriot website remember this advertisement put out by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee:



Right from the start, the ad cites an article in the Daily Telegram from 2004 in which Walberg calls Social Security "socialism." It's certainly not a good quote for Walberg-- as the ad notes, a lot of people rely on Social Security, and the negative connotation "socialism" carries is likely to offend a lot of people.

Chris Gautz was doubtful about the accuracy of the quote, mainly because, as a former employee of the Telegram, he had thought he would remember a quote that explosive. Although I probably would have read that article in 2004, my memory for these sorts of things is awful, so I deferred judgment to a later date.

But thanks to the magic of the internet and the wonders of active readers, Chris brought us the answer: Walberg did call Social Security "socialism"!

After reading for myself the full context of the quote, it would seem to lend credibility to what the DCCC was trying to say. But click below to see the portion of the article that was referenced and judge for yourself.

Here's the text of the article:

ADRIAN -- Tuesday's debate between Republicans and Democrats running for the 7th District Congressional seat allowed candidates to inform the public about their views, but led to little debate.

When a panelist asked the candidates about their views regarding Social Security reform and privatization, Republican Tim Walberg and Democrat Drew Walker openly debated the subject briefly.

Walker said the privatization of Social Security in the wake of corporate scandals and unstable stock prices could lead to individuals putting their retirement savings at risk in uninsured private accounts.

"What an incredible scandal; I would certainly never take part in that," Walker said. "Social Security is one of the foundations of our society for getting older."

The question then turned to Walberg, who began by expressing his feelings about Walker's statement.

"Wow, I just heard socialism at its finest," said Walberg, a former state representative. "Oh come on, that's offensive," Walker replied.

"That's defined as socialism when the government is required to take care of all of us," said Walberg, followed by audience laughter.

So, yes, now-Congressman Tim Walberg called Social Security "socialism" in 2004.

Labels: 2004 Election, 2008 Election, Advertising, DCCC, Drew Walker, Issues, Social Security, Tim Walberg

At last night's debate in Adrian, Congressman Tim Walberg and state Senator Mark Schauer talked about privatizing Social Security. Here's what happened, via the Jackson Citizen Patriot's Chris Gautz:

They also clashed over Social Security, with Schauer saying Walberg supports privatization.

"No I don't," Walberg said.

Schauer then offered to read Walberg his statement to CitPat reporter Holly Klaft in expressing his support for private accounts.

Schauer said Walberg's plan is dangerous and that "Social Security is not in crisis."

and Holly Klaft:

Schauer said the first-term congressman's plan to fix the nation's Social Security system by creating private accounts would be ``devastating.''

Walberg said there is no effort at this time to privatize Social Security.

He has said he would support giving future workers the option of putting part of their payroll taxes in personal accounts.

And, finally, the Schauer campaign has this quote:

"I have never taken a position to privatize Social Security."

Now, I haven't gotten my hands on any audio from the debate (yet), so I can't give you the unfiltered exchange. But let's suppose that this is all that happened.

For starters, when it says:

He has said he would support giving future workers the option of putting part of their payroll taxes in personal accounts.

Well, Congressman Walberg, that is privatization of Social Security. At least, that's the sort of plan generally accepted as privatizing Social Security. People get into trouble by relying on Wikipedia too much, but the article on this debate, while not the best, has a decent explanation of what "personal accounts" means-- namely, that individuals could take money they pay into the Social Security system and invest it in stocks and bonds.

So, Congressman Walberg, when this happened:

They also clashed over Social Security, with Schauer saying Walberg supports privatization.

"No I don't," Walberg said.

And this:

"I have never taken a position to privatize Social Security."

Well, you weren't exactly being honest. And then this:

Walberg said there is no effort at this time to privatize Social Security.

That's basically true. No one's really been pushing that idea lately. It basically died in 2005, due to lack of support and a lack of political capital for President Bush. But that didn't stop Tim Walberg from supporting it in 2006, so much so that he put it on his website:

Tim supports President Bush’s efforts to expand our ownership society by allowing younger workers to voluntarily invest a portion of their payroll taxes and allowing the money to be secured in personal investment accounts.

And in 2004, he also put on his website:

Tim Walberg believes Social Security benefits must be protected and younger workers should have the option of investing a portion of their payroll taxes in stocks, bonds, or money market funds. Under this reform, younger workers will earn a higher rate of return and likely retire with far more funds than under the current system.

Those claims are a little dubious, but that's beside the point-- in 2004 and 2006, Walberg was clearly on the record as supporting privatizing Social Security.

And then, in September, from the Detroit News:

Walberg, R-Tipton, supports changing the program so younger workers could choose to invest a portion of their Social Security money in private investment accounts.

And this from the Citizen Patriot the next day:

Kennelly, who is president of the National Committee To Preserve Social Security and Medicare, which endorsed Schauer in his bid for Congress, said lawmakers should avoid looking to privatization as a solution.

Privatization would put Social Security money seniors rely on into private accounts that are at the mercy of the market, she said.

She said many Social Security recipients get a little more than $1,000 per month.

Schauer said Social Security is an efficient system that must be preserved. He has said he would oppose any efforts to privatize it and would work to make sure Social Security is available for the long term.

Walberg said he supports giving future workers the option of saving part of their payroll taxes in personal accounts.

My point, of course, is to say that yes, Congressman Walberg, you do support privatizing Social Security. You didn't call it that, but Holly Klaft equated your plan with privatization, and we didn't hear any calls for a retraction. And just a few days ago, Chris Gautz made the same connection between "privatization" and the Walberg plan:

Also in the ad, it points out Walberg's support of "privatization," which is another way of saying he supports giving future workers the option of saving part of their payroll taxes in personal accounts. Of course those accounts could be subject to the whims of the market, and especially this week, might not be the most popular idea.

So, Congressman, when you said:

"I have never taken a position to privatize Social Security."

well, that was just a lie. You have taken a position in favor of privatizing Social Security. The only thing you haven't done is used the magical word "privatize."

Needless to say, the Schauer campaign is jumping on this (and rightly so):
Come on, Congressman Walberg. If you really, honestly, truly believe that privatizing Social Security is the right thing to do, then say so and do it honestly. Defend your ideas for what they are. Right now, you're trying to have it both ways, and when people call you out on it, you lie. That's not acceptable.

Labels: 2008 Election, Debates, Issues, Mark Schauer, Social Security, Tim Walberg

Social Security is an issue that people haven't been talking about much since about 2005 or so. With President Bush's failed attempt to push through a privatization plan, the system so many depend on has been left basically untouched by politicians.

When the Club for Growth attacked Mark Schauer earlier this week, they claimed he wanted to raise Social Security taxes-- which is a little misleading. However, aside from a few mentions every now and then by either Senator Schauer or Congressman Walberg, I haven't really seen or heard the issue brought up besides in that ad.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee changed that with a new ad, directly attacking Walberg on his support of privatizing Social Security:



Ouch.

Chris Gautz, who wrote about the ad this morning, says he doesn't remember the "socialism" quote, but I'm sure someone will come out with an article either confirming or explaining that.

But even if Walberg didn't actually say Social Security was "socialism," this ad could hurt him a lot. What Walberg supports is allowing younger workers to invest a portion of what they would get in benefits after retirement in the stock market-- ideally, to make more money. I was never exactly sure how that fit into the current system, where younger workers are paying for the benefits of retirees now... but that's policy. Right now, I want to talk about politics.

When privatization plans for Social Security were polled in 2005, most polls found that Americans were either split or slightly to moderately against the idea. When the headlines are things like "Dow Plunges 700," I suspect that the plan hasn't gotten any more popular recently. It's not an issue Republicans are eager to talk about right now.

But that's not even where it hurts Walberg. The conventional wisdom is that senior citizens are the most reliable voting bloc, and that they tend to be slightly more conservative-- slim advantage Walberg. But many of them rely on Social Security, as either a significant part or all of their income. Anything seen as potentially threatening that is going to play badly.

Will it cost Walberg the election? I doubt it. But it certainly won't help.

Labels: DCCC, Issues, Social Security, Tim Walberg