When is a sunset not a sunset? The Linda McMahon campaign has been feeling some heat from the newly resurfaced comments she made in a tea party forum earlier this year about the need to "sunset" Social Security. In response, her campaign has been reduced to utter nonsense.McMahon's campaign said their candidate only proposed a periodic review of Social Security, not subjecting it to an actual sunset provision: a deadline for its expiration, unless reauthorized by Congress.Let's just quickly review the record."She didn't mean sunset in terms of what most people typically think of a sunset provision of a bill," said Todd Abrajano, her communication director.
McMahon said in response to a question about how to "strengthen" Social Security and Medicare that "we cannot continue doing things the way we are doing with Social Security. We're just simply going to be bankrupt."So when she said "sunset provisions ... [in] this kind of legislation" she didn't mean "what most people typically think of a sunset provision of a bill"? Because it sure sounds like she's talking about having a program have a set end point, where it has to then be either scrapped or reauthorized.The candidate later continued, "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.[...] [emphasis added]
There aren't a lot of other ways to interpret that idea, which she expressed pretty damned clearly the first time around. Nice try, Mr. Abrajano, communication director. But no dice.
Democrat Chris Murphy has pounced.
On Thursday, Democratic Rep. Chris Murphy told seniors in Hartford that his Republican rival, Linda McMahon, wants to "phase out" Social Security.However McMahon's people try to spin it, Murphy is right. When she said "sunset" Social Security, that's precisely what she meant.
Please send Chris Murphy $3 on ActBlue.
No comments:
Post a Comment