By Lauren Lafaro
The Jeff Merkley/Steve Novick debate on Social Security came back around today, with the candidates reiterating their views not only on the federal program, but on each other.
Yesterday, Novick released a statement regarding his plan for Social Security, which includes raising taxes on those who make over $100,000 a year as well as those who earn their money on the stock market in order to enable the federal government to repay its obligations to the Social Security fund, thus keeping it solvent.
Merkley has, in the past, disagreed with Novick’s plan, and even his conceptual basis, stating that the program will be solvent through 2041.
“Republicans have tried to scare people in an attempt to privatize social security. Steve is falling right into their trap,” Matt Canter, Merkley’s spokesman said.
Furthermore, according to Canter, “in 2004, working as a political consultant, [Novick] advised John Kerry to leave social security alone and not take the Republican bait. Now he has reversed his position and taken the Republican bait, all to make a political attack on Merkley.”
Canter referred to a 2004 op-ed Novick submitted to the Oregonian, in which he wrote: “Kerry needs to make the point that Social Security ran a $160 billion surplus last year and would be solvent for decades "if you weren't blowing all the money at the track." He needs to say, "We don't need to change Social Security; we need to change presidents."
Novick has, however, tied the ‘track’ to the war in Iraq and outdated weapons systems, both of which have necessitated substantive amounts of federal funding—funding that could be used to repay the Social Security fund.
Jake Weigler, Novick’s campaign manager, maintains that the candidate has always had the exact same position. “There was never any shift or contradiction.”
He further pointed to a 1999 Letter to the Editor Novick had printed in the New York Times, in which Novick contested that a Republican proposal which would allow workers to divert a share of their Social Security taxes into private investment accounts ''appeals to many Americans” as evidence of Novick’s stance.
Weigler noted that the trust fund is only solvent to the degree that the federal government can pay back the money it has borrowed, and that on the current path, there is little chance of that happening.
“Senator Merkley is continuing to pander and confuse voters about long term fiscal challenges,” Weigler said. “Every rational person agrees there are questions about how we will pay back the obligations to Social Security.”
It would seem the Merkley campaign will be continuing to wield the tax-weapon against Novick; a recent telephone poll by the campaign contained the statement:"Novick is a pro-tax advocate, repeatedly supporting higher taxes for the middle classes, running on a proposal to raise Social Security taxes and falling for false Republican claims that if we don't do this, Social Security will go bankrupt."
