Dean, Kucinich, and Social Security Retirement Age

DemBones DemBones

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Aug-10-03 02:38 AM
Original message

Dean, Kucinich, and Social Security Retirement Age

Some of Howard Dean's supporters seem to be angry that Dennis Kucinich raised the issue of Dean's past statements supporting increasing the age for full Social Security benefits during the AFL-CIO debate. Some also continue to insist that Dean never said he'd raise the retirement age.

This is an important issue and we need to know where candidates stand on this issue.

Here are statements Dean made on "Meet the Press" on June 22, 2003, that should clear up the dispute.

Dean's statements about raising Soc. Sec. retirement age are bold to help in locating them in the midst of long quotes.

The entire MTP transcript is available at:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/912159.asp

Transcript for June 22
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Guest: Former Governor Howard Dean, (D-Vt.) Presidential Contender

Copyright 2003, National Broadcasting Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
� � � �PLEASE CREDIT ANY QUOTES OR EXCERPTS FROM THIS NBC TELEVISION PROGRAM TO �NBC NEWS� MEET THE PRESS.�

<snip>

Russert: But through your entire career you have been for a constitutional amendment to balance the budget.

� � � �Dean: Yes, because I just�I have, and it�s because I think that there�s so little fiscal discipline in the Congress that you might just have to do it. I hate to do it because we didn�t have to do it in Vermont, but, God, the guys in Washington just never get it about money.

Russert: Well, in 1995, when you were advocating that position, you were asked how would you balance the budget if we had a constitutional amendment...

� � � �Dean: Yeah.

� � � �Russert: ...calling for that, and this is what Howard Dean said. �The way to balance the budget, Dean said, is for Congress to cut Social Security, move the retirement age to 70, cut defense, Medicare and veterans pensions, while the states cut almost everything else. �It would be tough but we could do it,� he said.�

� � � �Dean: Well, we fortunately don�t have to do that now.

� � � �Russert: We have a $500 billion deficit.

� � � �Dean: But you don�t have to cut Social Security to do that.

� � � �Russert: But why did you have to do it back then?

� � � �Dean: Well, because that was the middle of�I mean, I don�t recall saying that, but I�m sure I did, if you have it on your show, because I know your researchers are very good.

� � � �Russert: Well, Miles Benson is a very good reporter for the Newhouse News.

� � � �Dean: Yes, he is. No, no, no. I�m sure I did. I�m not denying I said that. I have...

� � � �Russert: But you would no longer cut Social Security?

� � � �Dean: But you don�t�no. I�m not ever going to cut Social Security
benefits.

� � � �Russert: Would you raise retirement age to 70?

� � � �Dean: No. No.

Russert: Would you cut defense?

� � � �Dean: You don�t have to do that either. Here�s what you have to do. You got to get rid of the tax cuts, all of them, and then you have got to restrict spending. You�ve got to control�well, here�s what we did in Vermont. We had some mild tax cuts in the �90s, not the huge ones that most other states did. Secondly, we put a lot of money into a rainy day fund, and I never let the Legislature spend more than the rate of growth of the economy, so the biggest increase I think we had in the almost 12 years I was governor was I think 5.2 percent or something like that. And then we paid off a quarter of our debt, which is what Bill Clinton did when he was president. Now, we�re not cutting higher education, we�re not cutting K through 12, we�re not cutting Medicaid for kids, and we have a balanced budget. So if you restrain spending, which is long-term spending, that�s the key to balancing the budget. But you�ve got to get rid of the tax cuts because the hole is so very, very deep. And Social Security, I�the best way to balance Social Security budget right now, other than stop taking the money out for the tax cuts, is to expand the amount of money that Social Security payroll taxes apply to. It�s limited now to something like $80,000. You let that rise. I also would entertain taking the retirement age to 68. It�s at 67 now. I would entertain that.

<snip> (This section of Q and A on the budget doesn't refer to retirement age.)

�Russert: But, Governor, if you don�t go to near Social Security or Medicare or Defense and you have a $500 billion deficit, if you�re not going to raise taxes $500 billion to balance the budget, where are you going to find the money? Which programs are you going to cut? What do you cut? Education? Health care? Where?

� � � �Dean: Here�s what you do. As a veteran of having to do this, because this is what I did in Vermont, Social Security, you fix actuarially. It�s just like an insurance policy. Right now there�s� eventually, in the middle of the 2020s you�re going to see more money going out than coming in. You�ve got to fix that. We�ve talked a little bit about how to do that. Maybe you look at the retirement age going to 68. Maybe you increase the amount that gets�payroll tax�I�m not in favor of cutting benefits. I think that�s a big problem.

Summing up: On June 22, 2003, Howard Dean told Tim Russert he didn't remember saying (in 1995) that the Social Security retirement age should be raised to 70 but he didn't deny that he had said it and agreed that Russert's source for the quote was good.

Also on June 22, 2003, Howard Dean TWICE suggested he'd "entertain" or "look at" raising the returement age to 68.

Fast forward to Aug. 4, 2003, at the AFL-CIO debate.

In arguing for his own position of returning the age to 65 at the nationally-televised forum, Kucinich noted that "Mr. Dean has said that he'd move the retirement age to 68. One time, he talked about moving it to 70."

A few minutes later, Dean simply offered a broad denial: "I have never favored a Social Security retirement age of 70. Nor do I favor one of 68."

I will note here that Dean didn't say he would definitely raise the retirement age to 68 but he said, in two different paragraphs of the interview with Russert, that he'd "entertain" or "look at" raising the retirement age to 68, and in 1995 he favored raising it to 70, a fact which Russert reminded him of on June 22, 2003.

The questions I'd like answered are: Would Dean still "entertain" or "look at" raising the retirement age to 68? Has he changed his mind about that since June 22, 2003? And how did he forget his old position of raising the retirement age to 70 when he was reminded of it on June 22, 2003? One would think that having Russert hit him with quotes he didn't remember would have impressed that on his mind, particularly when it apparently was part of a program he advocated earlier in his career. Here's his 1995 statement again:

�The way to balance the budget, Dean said, is for Congress to cut Social Security, move the retirement age to 70, cut defense, Medicare and veterans pensions, while the states cut almost everything else. �It would be tough but we could do it,� he said.�