McSweeney Stands Firm

Recall the AARP definition in their survey, which has become a hot campaign issue in the closely contested McSweeney-Bean race:

"Would you support or oppose a balanced Social Security plan to continue the program's guaranteed benefits for future generations? Will you support or oppose using Social Security taxes to fund private accounts?"

And added this:

"AARP believes that a bipartisan plan that balances additional contributions from high income workers with modest adjustments in future benefits can maintain guaranteed Social Security benefits for future generations."

Previous post "Load of Pap from AARP". Wall Street Journal, ("AARP's Tax Trap" Nov. 1), on Melissa Bean's Social Security dodge (full text easily accessed at McSweeney site):

Those italics are ours, because in Washington "additional contributions" means a tax increase. And by "high income workers," AARP can only mean anyone earning more than $94,200, which is the 2006 income level above which the 12.4% Social Security portion of the payroll tax no longer applies. Employers and workers each pay half of the payroll levy, and the income cap already rises each year with inflation.

Thus if you make, say, $100,000 a year but live in pricey Los Angeles, tough luck; the folks at AARP think you're rich. They supported the elimination of the income cap for Medicare's portion of the payroll tax (2.9%) as part of the Clinton 1993 tax increase, and now they want to do it for the other 12.4%. A worker earning $150,000 would pay roughly $6,900 more each year in "additional contributions" under this AARP definition of "balance."

Or if you live in the pricey Chicago suburbs, included in Bean's district, the AARP wants to raise your taxes.

David McSweeney refused to sign the AARP pledge because he recognized it as a hefty tax increase on middle and upper income wage earners.

But Bean did. Now she's trying to wiggle out of it.

Democrat Melissa Bean -- who is trying to hold her seat in an affluent district near Chicago -- now claims she never supported the tax increase she plainly endorsed in answering AARP's questionnaire. And AARP is helping her disavow her pledge by sending a letter to her district's AARP members (as well as to the districts of other vulnerable Democrats who took its pledge). The letter from AARP President William Novelli slams Ms. Bean's opponent David McSweeney for his "ads trying to scare voters."This AARP complaint about Social Security "scare" tactics is certainly novel, given that its own political clout has been built entirely on scaring seniors.

But this is what an AARP spokesman said to the Daily Herald:

AARP spokesman Dave Sloane said the organization does believe lifting the cap on Social Security taxes on income above $90,000 and cutting future benefits may be necessary to keep the system afloat.

Yet he says taking Bean’s questionnaire statement to mean she wants to raise taxes or cut benefits “is an outrageous leap that is not even close to the truth.”

But this from the Journal:

That's not what Mr. Sloane said in previous statements about the purpose of AARP's candidate survey. He was quoted in the Palm Beach Post as saying that the intent of the questionnaire was to "gauge support for the group's position on Social Security . . . We presume that all the candidates would have read the background material and understood our positions."

Melissa Bean---ignorant or _____.

VOTE David McSweeney for smart and honest representation, standing firm for the best interests of the 8th.