Murphy Hammers McMahon On Social Security Comments
by Hugh McQuaid | Sep 27, 2012 2:06pm
Google
(23) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Congress, Election 2012
Hugh McQuaid photo
The Chris Murphy campaign released a new ad Thursday morning. But by the time the candidate was addressing a group of seniors in Hartford that afternoon, a new talking point had surfaced and the message had changed: Linda McMahon would be disastrous for Social Security.
Murphy, the Democratic candidate for the state’s open U.S. Senate seat, is locked in a tight race with Republican McMahon.
On Thursday the campaign latched on to an article posted on the Huffington Post Wednesday night in which the former wrestling CEO comments on the future of the Social Security program at a conservative event about five months ago.
Speaking before a group of Tea Party supporters in April, McMahon said she would consider introducing a “sunset provision” for entitlement programs such as Social Security.
Murphy raised the comments when he addressed a group of seniors at the North End Senior Center after having lunch with them.
“Linda McMahon said that she thinks that programs like Social Security should be phased out and there should be a sunset provision. She even gave a number she said that she thinks in 10 years or 15 years we should phase out Social Security. What a disaster. What a disaster for Connecticut seniors,” Murphy said.
He went on to tell the seniors that that is the kind of agenda a wealthy candidate like McMahon would propose, considering she is unlikely to ever need to rely on Social Security.
“Linda McMahon wants to privatize Medicare and now we learn today that she wants to phase out Social Security. That’s a radical agenda for this state,” he said.
But the McMahon campaign says Murphy’s interpretation of their candidates’ position is more fiction than fact.
“Linda McMahon is committed to reforming entitlements without breaking the promises we’ve made to our seniors,” Todd Abrajano, McMahon‘s spokesman, said. “She will never vote for a budget that cuts Social Security for seniors.
All she meant by using the word “sunset provision” was there needs to be checkpoints in the legislation to make sure it’s still sustainable for future generations, Abrajano said.
During her 2010 campaign, McMahon refused to talk about entitlement spending. She told CTNewsjunkie in August 2010 that “I really do think we’re going to have strengthen all of our entitlement programs, but that’s not really a discussion for the campaign trail.”
It wasn’t until U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan was selected as Mitt Romney’s running mate that McMahon broke her silence on entitlements.
“Linda McMahon will never support a budget that cuts Medicare,” Corry Bliss, McMahon’s campaign manager, said in a statement.
At that press conference in March where she unveiled her economic plan, she was vague about whether a one percent spending reduction would include cuts to entitlement programs, such as Medicare and Social Security.
“Clearly we’re going to have to address entitlements because we know they‘re not sustainable” McMahon said back in March. “But at this particular point my focus and emphasis today is to talk about jobs and my plan to spur the economy.”
The McMahon campaign will also be re-airing a radio ad which accuses Murphy of voting to cut Medicare by passing the Affordable Care Act.
The spending reductions in the Affordable Care Act aimed at the Medicare program were reductions in payments to insurance companies providing Medicare Advantage plans, and hospitals. None of the reductions target benefits of those use the program. It’s a claim that has been debunked by nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and several news organizations.
Based on a full transcript posted on the Huffington Post, McMahon told the Tea Party group that Medicare and Social Security are clearly in trouble. She says there are a number of ways to potentially address that problem but said it should be addressed in a bipartisan manner.
And I do believe that, that there are ways to look at, you know, what we’re trying to do when we put Social Security in place? We didn’t go back and review it. In other words, I believe in sunset provisions when we pass this kind of legislation, so that you take a look at it 10, 15 years down the road to make sure that it’s still going to fund itself. Social Security will run out of money if we continue to do what we’re doing, if we rob the trust fund, if we think that there’s any money there—there’s not. But there are, there certainly are (inaudible) securities, banks, backed by the federal government.
However, Medicare is again going to go bankrupt if we don’t change it. There’ve been recommendations of block grants, of our seniors looking at choosing what kinds of plans that they want. But I can tell you one thing I would not do, I would not vote on any rule or law that would take away the benefits that our seniors have today or those that are approaching retirement age. Because they’re there, they’re counting on those benefits. We have to find another way to pay for it other than impacting our seniors today, and I would not vote for anything that would do that.
Speaking to reporters after the event, Murphy defended his comments. A sunset provision effectively ends a program and requires Congress to reauthorize it to keep it going. He said the disastrous proposal is more radical than most anything the Tea Party movement has proposed in Washington D.C.
“That’s a radical idea, to sunset Social Security and let it expire. I was shocked when I read that proposal and it seems by the context of it, she knew exactly what she was talking about. And listen she was talking to a Tea Party group,” he said.
Out of context or not, Murphy’s message seemed to resonate with the seniors who hear it Thursday. There was audible grumbling from the crowd as he spoke of McMahon’s comments.
Harry Hartie, who said he goes by “The Handsome One,” said he is a Republican but is concerned about the direction his party is heading in on social programs among other things.
“It’s deeply concerning. That affects me,” he said of Social Security. “She’s following the scope of the party, otherwise she would be saying something to John Boehner and Mitt Romney, who are saying the wrong thing.”
Murphy said there are ways to keep Social Security solvent without sunsetting it, like increasing the amount of money it captures. He said Congress should look at asking the very wealthy to pay a little more into the program.
But Murphy’s not the only one who got his message out to seniors Thursday. Before he arrived his opponent’s ad was running as seniors were watching “The Price Is Right.”
Editor’s note: Reporters received 7 minutes with Murphy before he was whisked away by his handlers. Until the end of the campaign we will be reporting the time each candidate gives reporters before getting shut down by their campaigns.
Tags: Linda McMahon, Chris Murphy, Social Security, Medicare, Hugh McQuaid, dh
(23) Comments
posted by: JamesBronsdon | September 27, 2012 2:53pm
Typical make-believe political ad campaign by Murphy. Take a word (“context”) from here, and place it there, and now we have a new statement from our opponent that we can use to fool the gullible.
posted by: SalRomano | September 27, 2012 3:34pm
Linda McMahon told the truth when when she said that the Social Security Fund will be running out of money in 10 to 15 years down the road. However, career politicians like Chris Murphy in Congress, have been borrowing from the SS fund for many years—which is the reason we are running out of money in the fund. However, all Murphy wants to do is to make a joke out of it—comparing it with the TV show—“The Price is Right,” which just shows “HOW WRONG MURPHY IS!”
“Unless we vote out cancerous career politicians like Obama and Murphy, the future of out country looks very dim.” Nov. 6 may be “the last chance saloon,” to undue the grave voting errors we made on the last election day.
As a trained lawyer, Murphy is very glib with words—but very short on production in Congress—unless you want to count his $5.2 trillion dollar deficit spending achievement, as a rubber-stamp vote for Pres. Barack Obama—in only 46 months.
posted by: CT Jim | September 27, 2012 4:24pm
Gee Sal it must be real easy to just copy and paste the standard GOP talking points….Because they may have worked in 2010 there’s no data showing they are working now.And telling people they are stupid in how and why they vote wont get you any votes.Stick a fork in Willard….He’s done
posted by: MGKW | September 27, 2012 4:45pm
To the McMahon Apologists—
Now that Murphy is identifying McM??? for what she is…a devoutee of the Tea Party and not an independent minded woman, the shoe is now on the other foot…. the difference is that this is a policy issue that needs talking about…you can now see why McMahon cannot work from anything but a script…CT version of Mitt, pure and simple. I wonder how Corey Bliss will extricate her from this one with this one? Say Murphy is an adulterer? Say he mistreats his pets?
In ignorance there is Bliss!
posted by: tin turnip | September 27, 2012 5:24pm
Sal, either you didn’t actually read the article, or you have SERIOUS reading comprehension problems. Go read that reference to “The Price is Right” again. And clearly neither you nor Fred has any idea what a “sunset provision” is.
posted by: Phil Stull | September 27, 2012 5:44pm
Just a few seconds of research would inform you that there is a $2.7 Trillion surplus in SS Trust Fund and that will last decades and only a small change in the cap will make this fund good for 75 years, so please inform yourself and stop scaring others with misinformation.
posted by: Noteworthy | September 27, 2012 6:32pm
There Murphy the parrot goes again. Obama doesn’t understand what “harvesting” an investment is and jumps all over Rommney. Murphy parrots the move by jumping on “sunset” by McMahon. Hey Murph: What’s your answer to social security running out of money? What solution have you proposed in the years you’ve been in Washington?
posted by: NoNonsense2012 | September 27, 2012 7:31pm
You can criticize Murphy all you want, but McMahon either doesn’t know what “sunset provision” means, or she hopes that WE don’t know what it means. Here’s the definition of “sunset provision”: A statutory provision providing that a particular agency, benefit, or law will expire on a particular date, unless it is reauthorized by the legislature.
McMahon is talking out of both sides of her mouth. And some of you are worried about “career politicians”? McMahon is scary!
posted by: 29allie | September 27, 2012 8:28pm
I’m a Republican and have met her. I was astounded at her ignorance on basic issues. She is not who people think she is. Some people are now calling her Linda McSCAM and that’s exactly what she does - scam people - she’s like a chameleon & will change into whatever people want her to be. At least Murphy is genuine and decent.
posted by: 29allie | September 27, 2012 8:31pm
Excuse me. Murphy isn’t a career politician. he’s a public servant. And by the way, exactly what’s wrong with a career politician? At least he knows his business, unlike McMahon who woke up one day and decided she’s like to buy a public office.
posted by: MGKW | September 27, 2012 10:48pm
29Allie,
Well said…she is the second coming of Jody Rell who managed to fool the people of CT with her grandmotherly demeanor and her ignorant and no-nothing way of running the state. This is what you are getting with MCM$$$...why do you think she does not do any interviews…just look at this article…she is absolutely clueless about policy and about solutions facing the country and is not to be trusted on anything she says—-prochoice? independent? I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
posted by: Noteworthy | September 28, 2012 6:39am
Just love the people who post here, who start by “I’m a republican” and then hand out sloppy kisses to the Murph. Being a career pol is mostly bad, not good. The careerists have year after year faced the same problems and never solve any of them. They puff and pontificate, get special deals and rich benefits - and yet, we have no job growth; massive debts; they vote for programs for which they don’t have the money and they suck up to the special interests and lobbyists who torture our tax code and litter our regulations so that in the end, little is regulated well and they’re little industries pay extremely low taxes. Public servant my arse.
posted by: CitizenCT | September 28, 2012 6:47am
Chris Murphy comes across as desperate. It’s sad. Linda McMahon recognizes that social security can’t continue at its current trajectory, and difficult decisions and changes will be needed. This is what we expect of our politicians. Chris Murphy makes promises that he doesn’t know how to pay for. He voted to put the US in default by voting against raising the debt ceiling. Look at his personal finances not paying taxes, mortgages and rent. It’s obvious that honoring commitments is not important to him. Mr. Stull, a few more seconds of research and you’d know the social security trust fund is empty with nothing but an IOU from the federal Gvt that’s already $16T in debt, not even counting what it owes the SS trust fund. CTJim and MGKW, we’re still waiting. Just tell us one thing that Chris Murphy accomplished in his six years in congress that made any impact for CT. Just one piece of legislation he championed through the process. Prove to us he’s not a lazy follower.
posted by: stellablu122 | September 28, 2012 7:19am
Its good to see Murphy finall get on message here. Ofcoarse Social Security needs reforms and shoring up but this needs to be a bipartian approach. Paul Ryan’s ideas will undermine what our country has stood for for over 50 years. I hate to say this but Linda Mcmahon will say whatever to please whom ever.
She has no vision on this issue or experience in dealing with such far reaching policy.
She will just fold in line with the GOP. I mean is she trying to be a Jodi Rell now?
Independent woman LMAO.
What’s next white bread?
posted by: NoNonsense2012 | September 28, 2012 11:17am
To 29allie: if you were responding to my comment, I did not say that Murphy is a career politician—it’s what the McMahon supporters call him. That’s why I put it in quotes. And I don’t think people who make a career of public service should be denigrated for it.
I’m a life-long registered Republican, too. I would not vote for McMahon if shere were running unopposed. She can’t be bought because she’s so rich. But since she’s using her own money to try to buy this Senate seat, she won’t owe the voters anything, will she?
Since she lost so terribly two years ago, because every time she opened her mouth people realized how little she knew, she’s changed her strategy this time around: don’t be interviewed, don’t go anywhere you can’t stick to the script, stay away from real issues, and try to fool everybody that you’re warm and fuzzy. This strategy won’t work, either.
posted by: 29allie | September 28, 2012 12:30pm
DUH! I love these people who complain about Murphy not solving all the problems in this state. Now I wonder where this avalanche of problems started??? Duh! Could it have been with the Republican Bush administration?? Funny how ya’ll seem to coveniently want to forget that then blame the Democrats for not getting us out of it in 4 months. If you want complicated problems solved quickly watch Seseme Street.
posted by: NOW What? | September 28, 2012 1:10pm
The fact of the matter is that - largely thanks to the “Tea Party” movement - there is almost no such thing as an “independent-minded” Republican politician anymore. No matter what a Republican candidate for office publicly says or doesn’t say, they are beholden to their party’s extremist platform and constantly look for ways to phrase their statements in a manner that is deliberately designed to camouflage their allegiance to their party’s platform.
posted by: ALD | September 28, 2012 3:57pm
29allie,
I for one would not expect Murphy to solve all the problems of this state. I would have just hoped that after 14 years in Hartford and Washington he would have been the solution to any of them. I would even vote for him had he been part of any solution after 14 years.
Once again as things just get worse and worse in the state, and country, we hear that it’s still all Bush and the Republican’s fault..
Lets get a few things correct. The last two years Bush was in office, Murphy was part of Pelosi’s Democratically controlled House. As he was for the next two years of the Obama administration.
The Democrats recently even enjoyed a veto proof margin of control in the General Assembly here in CT and have at least controlled it for what now seems forever. Murphy was part of that mess in Hartford for eight years before escaping to Washington six years ago to continue working his magic there.
Rell may have been called a Republican but was more a Democrat, But we don’t need to spit hairs over her. We can at least agree she was a very poor Governor. So poor she even let the last budget mess put together by Donovan and Williams in their Democratically dominated General Assembly to become law without her signature. That’s the same budget another Democrat our current governor Malloy has pointed out to be so dishonest that he was going to implement GAAP financial controls…....... Until he got elected I guess.
I agree with you however that it’s not any fair to expect Murphy to have solved all CT’s problems created in Hartford and Washington. Nor is it fair to continue to blame Bush for them all, and pretend that the Democrats in both places were not a big part of them as well.
What I do know for sure is that if we keep rewarding the same people who have been part of the problem with re election we will never solve any of the problems…....... So for me it’s clear….....It’s time for a change.
posted by: 29allie | September 28, 2012 7:41pm
Dear ALD,
You are onviously a very thoughtful person. before I vote for anypne I try to keep myself relatively informed. Please check out Chris Murphy’s backround. he isn’t fancy, not a celebrity, doesn’t dress like a model, but he is beloved by his fellow Congress people and also by the people, both Republican and Democrats in CT. He has passed stem cell laws, fought tooth and nail for the rights of women & the underprivileged, started the middle aisle caucus so both Republicans & Democrats can start talikng with each other, wrote part of the new health care law where children and students whose parents don’t have insurance can finally be taken care of, taken on the mental health lobby, has a 98% rating with the enviornmental groups, began the “Buy American” bill etc. etc. So when you say he’s part of the problem he really isn’t. The reason you don’t haer a lot about Chris is because he doesn’t blow his own horn. I know of him because he helped our family out of a very dire situation. I was told about him from a neighbor who contacted him about several issues and he got right back to her. He has no ego and simply put seems to be a guy who just takes pride in doing his job right. He never seeks the limelight because he’s too busy working. As I said, I am a Republican, but I’m not married to that party. I try to research candiddates before I vote. Do you know that Linda MCMahon’s site doesn’t even have “issue” statements? That’s pretty much unheard of and makes me wonder why not? In this morning’s Courant they commented that she didn’t really know what the Blunt Amendment was about and had never heard of the Lillie Ledbetter Law which prohibits women from being discriminated against in the workplace. I spoke with her at the Women’s Expo and was very disappointed when she didn’t seem to have a grasp of the issues. In my heart I truly believe this race to her is about “power” and nothing else. I don’t see that she really cares about the people of CT. If she did wouldn’t she have done her resaerch and be more knowledgeable? I think she has tried to devert her lack of intelligence by pointing the finger at everything Congressman Murphy has done wrong. And again, they are unbelievable distortions of his record. When she says he didn’t go to his job I actaully found out that those meetings she talked about not any Republicans attend either. Alot of them are about coen farming in Nebraska, enriching the earth with worms etc. And, if a Congressman can’t go to one because he is in committee meetings he can have an aid go and he also gets a full write up of what the meeting was about. The true measure of your Congressman is his voting record and Murphy’s is at the very top 97%. I really like what you have to say. You seem very intelligent and that’s why I think you need to make a decision between a woman who has never held a public office in her life and is truly trying to “Buy” this one. Did you know she dropped a boatload of cash to hire Cory Bliss one of the most vile campaign managers in the US? I think he worked for someone in Maine before this and the people in that state said they couldn’t get him out of there fast enough. Oh my! She’s spent to date almost $70,000,000 trying to win a Senate seat. Murphy has $3,000,000. How does anyone compete with that? The only people who will be able to run for public office will be the wealthy. Please tell me you’ll check your conscience and re-evaluate this decision? Thoughtfully Allie
posted by: stellablu122 | September 29, 2012 10:34am
Allie shoots and scores! Chris Murphy needs you on his campaign staff. A very heart felt and insightful comment. Well done.
posted by: SalRomano | September 29, 2012 11:48am
29allie: It appears that you are “too close to Chris Murphy” and have closed your eyes to the deep fiscal hole he has helped inflict on our country, by being a voting puppet for Pres. Barack Obama’s bankruptcy-driven agenda that has our country in a $5.2 trillion dollar massive budget deficit in only 46 months as spending partners together. Obama’s controlling billionaires own America’s liberal press—which won the last election for Obama. Unless people like you smarten up and vote out our spending foolish (on purpose) political agenda -Obama will bury this country in the next four years—with the help of a ‘coat-tail big spender like Chris Murphy.’ Obama’s billionaires have covered up the plight our country is in, with their control of the liberal press—which is telling weak-thinking voters—who to vote for, as they succeeded in the last election.
When America allowed “God bless Ameica” to be removed from schools and gavernment buildings, we were cursed by turning to a leader like Obama with a still unverified background, who has spent $875,000, of his own money—to keep hiding his past. Only voter ignorance will cause voters to vote for someone who fights to cover up his background—as he has somthing to hide—and is successful in hiding his past, so for. Shame on our voters—if they reelect a politically suspect Barack Hussein Obama—who is entrenched to bury the USA—with the help of his billionaire political masters.
Mitt Romney has a very clean background that Obama has tried to assail—but he can’t—while Obama keeps hiding his own very questionable background “tooth and nail!”
Only a foolish vote belongs to Obama on Election Days, and hopefully, there will no be too many foolish votes for Obama, like in the last presidential election. ‘It’s later that you think for America—unless we turn our rudderless ship around!”
The future of our country depends on it.
posted by: ALD | September 29, 2012 2:53pm
Allie,
Thank you for your very civil response. I am not a Republican nor a Democrat. While I admit that I am more conservative than liberal, I try my best to only vote for those who deserve my vote no matter which party.
I wish my experiences with Mr Murphy were as positive as yours.
I first met him the way so many others have, when he came to my door. We spoke at length about many issues that were of concern to me. At the time none of them were strictly personal. He looked me in the eyes and agreed with each and every concern. Sadly I was fooled, I became a supporter and I voted for him. Even more sadly once elected not one of the concerns that he told me he agreed with in my living room, when he looked me in the eyes, did he ever concern himself about.
Eventually, I too like you had a serious family concern….... Only my concern if properly addressed would have not only helped my family, but many other families across the state, while at the same time saving the state a huge amount of money.
I e-mailed him with my concern, and asked that we find a way to discuss the matter. I did get a response which was to direct me to contact his secretary. When I did I was promptly invited to a fund raiser for him. After repeated failed attempts to speak to him directly, I was once again directed via e-mail to contact his secretary, and told she would be able to help me. I did contact her, and as expected, all she could do was listen to my concern and promise to pass the information on to Mr Murphy. Once again I was invited to another fund raiser for him. That issue was never addressed.
Obviously everyone with an idea thinks their idea is without flaw. I am not saying my idea was perfect, or even workable, but since my representative at the time never took the time to explore it with me, any possible flaws it may have, I’ll never know about.
I could go on with more here, but hopefully this is enough to assure you that my vote this election for Linda McMahon didn’t have to happen. Nor is it without a LOT of conscience. It will be less a vote that she has earned at this point, than it is a vote that Chris Murphy has lost.
Einstein once said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again that isn’t working, and expecting different results.
Clearly I am voting this election for different results.
Finally I am happy for you that your experiences are totally different than mine, and I once again thank you for your civil response to my comments.