I got $5 that says Maria Cantwell's campaign has some polling which shows the issue of providing Social Security benefits to illegal immigrants doesn't sell very well with a lot of people.
On the heels of discussion that Cantwell is content to run out the clock with a respectable lead, she has oddly come out firing in response to this ad from Mike McGavick. Cantwell's website, to the discredit of her and her staff, still doesn't have the ad online as of this typing, though the ad has been out for at least two days and other material such as press releases have been added in the interim. One can, however, read the McGavick campaign's takedown of the ad here. [On a personal note, I have to compliment the McGavick team on this. This is the 2nd time they've torn apart the validity of a Cantwell ad. Having been tasked with similar such duties in 2000, and having seen other campaign ads debunked either well or poorly, I can say with some experience the McGavick campaign is doing good work...though does anyone expect the Seattle Times will quickly call for Cantwell to pull either ad?]
The McGavick ad in question is essentially a soft contrast piece. The issue contrast is stark, but the mood of the ad is well, civil, and lacking in the dark shading and scary music that characterize attack ads. The Cantwell ad makes no such pretense. During the foreboding section attacking McGavick on Social Security (as if anyone can take Cantwell herself seriously on the topic) the viewer really half expects to see the camera pan to Mike beating the daylight out of some poor senior citizen (or two) on the sidewalk, just for kicks.
Thus, raising an interesting question: Maria Cantwell is sitting on an 8-10 point lead, at least based on recent public polling, why is she making the potential mistake of going negative first? And why is her ad doing so completely full of holes?
Posted by Eric Earling at October 11, 2006 06:59 AM | Email ThisThe MSM's only get involved when it becomes their olny defensive move and when they have been dragged in by their boots.
She is just another Political Hack.
Posted by: GS on October 11, 2006 07:20 AMCantwell isn't going negative -- she's correcting the record. Fact is, she has never advocated paying Social Security benefits to illegal aliens. She has said that she thinks legal residents of the U.S. should receive benefits based on all the work for which they have paid Social Security taxes. I don't have a problem with that. Apparently, you do and, I guess, so does McGavick. If that's the case, he should just plainly say so and let the voters decide. Instead, he's distorted the message to make it appear that Cantwell wants to give Social Security to people who are illegally in the country and that's just plain dishonest.
Posted by: scottd on October 11, 2006 08:37 AMYour "Mainstream" comrade Foley has ensured his defeat along with the defeat of many others.
Do you liberals join the Republican party just so you can create a scandal when it hurts the Republicans the most? Wouldn't put it past you. Liberals stop at nothing.
As long as "its your party too" Republicans will keep losing. Ronald Reagan showed that clear choices will return election results. As long as you have candidates who are "embarrassed about being Republican" people will not vote for them. But if you give them a true alternative - a strong proud conservative - like Reagan, people will vote for that candidate.
Posted by: CnR on October 11, 2006 08:54 AM"NANANANANANANANANANANA!"
Posted by: alphabet soup on October 11, 2006 09:13 AMReagan had Carter's abysmal economy and foreign policy nightmare to thank. The country, regardless of party, was disgusted with their president.
Hmmm sound familiar?
Posted by: Andy on October 11, 2006 09:20 AMSo basically what you are saying WAYNE is that when someone commits a crime, once they have served their time in jail, they deserve to reap the fruits of their crime?
Or don't you think breaking the immigration laws of the United States of America is a crime? And you talk about others being dishonest.
Posted by: pbj on October 11, 2006 10:03 AMIf they have a legit SSN, then the Feds are a disgrace for handing them out without a check on status (what ID did they show to obtain the SSN - a foreign passport with no visa in it)?
If they do not have a legit SSN, who is to pay to have the funds transfered from the account they gave to theirs?
All-in-all Cantwell is pandering to people that are not part of her constituents to the detriment of her constituents.
Posted by: Right said Fred on October 11, 2006 10:05 AMDon't be an idiot. Cantwell hasn't said anything about making illegal residents legal. She's just said that people who obtain legal status should get all of the benefits they've already paid for. If you have a problem with that, fine -- just quit with the deliberate distortions. You're obviously worried that your argument is too weak to be accepted by the majority of voters without enhancing it with misleading statements.
Posted by: scottd on October 11, 2006 10:10 AMWay to change the subject.
Like I said, people can disagree about the policy. If Mike! and the others honestly described Cantwell's position and pointed out their disagreement, I would have no problem with that. However, the framing of Cantwell's position in a way that is obviously misleading is the issue I raised, not whether her actual position is good policy. Of course, when a democratic candidate makes a misleading statement about a GOP position, you guys are the first to scream about it.
Posted by: wayne on October 11, 2006 10:21 AMin other words, sanction & reward lawbreaking. the same reason why we do not let dope dealers deduct 'business expenses' of their work, like acquiring the dope itself as 'inventory.'
forget it--and--i'd cut education, food assistance, housing and medical bene's to illegals too. why are THEY automatically "entitled?" more so than a legal veteran? or legal disabled person? "hard work" is not a qualifier.
if you're here illegally, the taxes deducted are one of your many costs of breaking the law--forfeitable--you knew what you were doing--nobody dropped you in the country against your will.
only twisted liberal logic would entitle every conceivable person to feed off the American table of benefits. and we wonder why we are inching towards becoming like many 3rd world countries? "it's only fair", right? "it's the right thing to do," right? hell is paved with good intentions. we have not the purse to support the world--let other countries' leaders do so for their own.
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on October 11, 2006 10:43 AMDotzauerGate is a TAX SHAM! The proper agency to involve is the IRS!! Forget the smutty divorce or some sort of pay-off stuff unless you have clear evidence.
From everything reported and documents released, the IRS Tax Sham is a NO-BRAINER & goes like this:
1) Political contributions are not deductible.
2) However, big money Lefty's pay so-called "consulting fees" to Dotzauer. The big money LEFTY's DEDUCT those consulting fees.
3) Dotzauer reports them as INCOME....however then deducts the contributions as ORDINARY EXPENSES as a Lobbyist.
NET Result===Political Contributions are deducted....No net income to Dotzauer.
Many problems with this sham. Likely the IRS will be able to go back beyond the Statute of Limitiations.
How this impacts Cantwell??? Remains to be seen. Depends upon who gave these "consulting fees" to Ron and who Ron "laundered them too.
One other HUGE PROBLEM for Ron.
Political Contributions are NOT DEDUCTIBLE...even for Lobbyists. It's pure BULLSH*T folks.
Ron's bigger problem?
He likely under-reported income for Child Support purposes. FRAUD! Child support would require including the income "consulting fees"...but would not allow him credit for purposes of calculating child support.
Once this all comes into the light....it's likely that Ronnie will have BOTH the IRS and a really P*ssed Off ex-wife on his A$$!!!!!!!!!!!!
Will anybody be sharing this theory with the IRS and his ex-wife??? Undoubtedly!!! Remember...10% SNITCH FEE from IRS>
Stake your claim today...my gift to any of you with IRS contacts.
Congratulations.....
Next time a democrat claims that some GOP candidate supported a cut in a program, when what they actually supported was a cut in the amount of increase in the program, please recall this discussion.
Posted by: wayne on October 11, 2006 10:51 AM"Don't be an idiot. Cantwell hasn't said anything about making illegal residents legal. She's just said that people who obtain legal status should get all of the benefits they've already paid for. If you have a problem with that, fine -- just quit with the deliberate distortions. You're obviously worried that your argument is too weak to be accepted by the majority of voters without enhancing it with misleading statements."
You shpuld take your own advice.
Now let's look at what you wrote:
"She's just said that people who obtain legal status should get all of the benefits they've already paid for."
So are we talking about Social Security benefits that LEGAL IMMIGRANTS earn from the momnet they become LEGAL citizens? OR are we talking about ILLEGALS who work in this country ILLEGALLY and then becomes citizens who seek to retroactively obtain those SS benefits they "earned" while they had ILLEGAL status??
Please clarify for us.
Please clarify her position for us then. Is it her position that a person who once was an ILLEGAL worker in the US but is now a LEGAL worker should be able to retroactively claim benefit "earned" while they were here working ILLEGALLY? If that is not her position then indeed there is a misunderstanding here.
If her position is simply that one who imigrates here LEGALLY should be able to earn SS while working LEGALLY, then there is no "position" at all, but rather the reality for all US citizens.
Posted by: pbj on October 11, 2006 12:05 PMI am calling you both out. You two have been lying and trying to obfuscate the issue.
Source:
http://www.ontheissues.org/International/Maria_Cantwell_Immigration.htm
Voted YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security.
Voting YEA would table (kill) the proposed amendment to prohibit illegal immigrants from receiving Social Security benefits. Voting NAY supports that prohibition, while voting YEA supports immigrants participating in Social Security. Text of amendment:
To reduce document fraud, prevent identity theft, and preserve the integrity of the Social Security system, by ensuring that persons who receive an adjustment of status under this bill are not able to receive Social Security benefits as a result of unlawful activity.
* Proponents of the amendment say to vote NAY because:The Immigration Reform bill would allow people to qualify for social security based on work they did while they were illegally present in the US and illegally working in the US. People who broke the law to come here and broke the law to work here can benefit from their conduct to collect social security.
* In some cases, illegal immigrants may have stolen an American citizen's identity. They may have stolen an American's social security number to fraudulently work. This amendment corrects this problem.
* Opponents of the amendment say to vote YEA because: Americans understand that for years there are undocumented workers who have tried to follow our laws and be good neighbors and good citizens, and have paid into the Social Security Trust Fund.
* Once that person regularizes his or her status, and as they proceed down the path to earned citizenship, they should have the benefit after having followed the law and made those contributions. That is fairness.
* We should not steal their funds or empty their Social Security accounts. That is not fair. It does not reward their hard work or their financial contributions.
* The amendment proposes to change existing law to prohibit an individual from gaining the benefit of any contributions made while the individual was in an undocumented status. I oppose this amendment and believe it is wrong.
Here is the link to her vote:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00130
Anymore trolls want to try to lie their way out of this one???
"To reduce document fraud, prevent identity theft, and preserve the integrity of the Social Security system, by ensuring that persons who receive an adjustment of status under this bill are not able to receive Social Security benefits as a result of unlawful activity."
This means, if you vote YES, (e.g. kill the amendment, that you are FOR allowing people to receive SS benefits as the result of UNLAWFULL ACTVIITIES(such as say selling crack cocaine, prostitiion or perhaps ILLEGALLY WORKING after INVADING this country).
So to recap, a YEA vote means to kill the provision banning receipt of SS benefits for illegal activities. Maria Cantwell voted YEA
Scottd and Wayne are liars if they claim anything else. How much is the DNC paying you schills? They should ask for their money back.
I believe this is one of the clearest written bills/amendments I have seen. How can a senator, with 46 aides, be so confused? If she didn't know what she was voting for, why vote for it?
Posted by: pagar on October 11, 2006 12:37 PMIf you can't see the difference between paying SSA tax while illegally working here and stealing a car, there is very little more to say. However, you keep wanting to argue the merits of the legislation, while I am merely pointing out that the claim made in Mike's commercial is misleading because it leads to the impression that Cantwell wants illegal immigrants to receive social security payments when they are illegal, and that is not true.
Posted by: wayne on October 11, 2006 12:40 PMThey are earning the credits while they are illegal. So not just no, but HELL NO, I will not agree with you. You are trying to parse words to obfuscate the reality of her vote.
We do not allow serial killers to write books and make money off royalties. This is a similar thing. No one should receive any benefit from the fruits of their crime.
If you think criminals should be allowed to collect the fruits of their crime, then please just say so and have Cantwell say so and stop parsing words.
Posted by: pbj on October 11, 2006 12:40 PM
The claim Mike made was spot on accurate. He said that Cantwell voted to grant social security benefits to illegals. And that is true. She did vote to allow them to get credit for what they paid in while they were illegally here. Therefore, if they become legal, they can then get the "benefit" of what they did while being illegal.
If someone is an illegal alien, does that mean I have a right to rob him? Mug them? Steal his car? After all, he's here illegally and got those things by working illegally!
If you answer "no" to these questions, then why does the govt have the right to keep Social Security taxes they paid?
Anyway, as Wayne says, no matter what your position on this issue, Mike! is blatantly misstating Cantwell's position.
Obviously you don't have a problem with people thinking that Cantwell wants illegal immigrants to receive actual cash money after seeing Mike!'s ads, since that might help your candidate. However, I have to be somewhere, so I will depart on that note.
Posted by: wayne on October 11, 2006 12:59 PMThe Primary Insurance Amount is based on 90% of the first $656 of average indexed monthly earnings (AIME) and then 32% of AIME up to $3,955, and finally 15% of AIME over $3,955. Notice how the percentages go DOWN as the AIME goes UP?
Since illegal aliens are almost always going to be in the lower end of this range, they are in the subsidized portion of the social security benefits. So Cantwell and others on this thread are advocating not only giving social security benefits to illegals, (i.e. they are not just "giving them benefits based on the work they did"), they are giving them much more than their "dollar's worth"--i.e. these benefits are subsidized by other hardworking LEGAL workers.
Posted by: Bill H on October 11, 2006 01:02 PMThe IRS doesn't fine even the most egregious employers who repeatedly submit inaccurate data about their workers. Social Security does virtually nothing to alert citizens whose Social Security numbers are being used by others.Evidence abounds within their files, according to an analysis by Knight Ridder and The Charlotte Observer.
One internal study found that a restaurant company had submitted 4,100 duplicate Social Security numbers for workers. Other firms submit inaccurate names or numbers reports for nearly all of their employees. One child's Social Security number was used 742 times by workers in 42 states.
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/special_packages/immigration_debate/14416765.htm
How would you know you were getting the benefits back to the right person?
In order to get a SS card, you should have proof of LEGAL residency. If you pay into the system under that condition, I'm ok with you getting benefits.
If you pay into the system as described in the Knight Ridder article, then you should be SOL.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on October 11, 2006 01:05 PMBrad
Posted by: Brad on October 11, 2006 01:11 PMYou gotta wonder why wayne continued his defense of ANY such benefits to illegals, whether paid in or not.
Guaranteed Demorat votes, that's why.
Posted by: Concerned Citizen on October 11, 2006 01:50 PMI believe Mike's ad said "benefits" not money. Receiving credits for working here illegally constitutes benefits.
Posted by: Palouse on October 11, 2006 01:58 PMThere you go again, trying to lie. The SS taxes ILLEGALS paid were when they were here ILLEGALLY! What part of ILLEGAL don't you get? If a Democrat robs a bank and steals $1 million, invested it for 12 months and then returns $1 million ot the bank, should he get to keep the interest earned? After all, he did return the orignal $1 million.
"If someone is an illegal alien, does that mean I have a right to rob him? Mug them? Steal his car? After all, he's here illegally and got those things by working illegally!"
Obviously you are ignorant as to how Mexico treats illegals from Guatemala. That is precisely what they do. WHht we need to do is find them and ship their invading behinds back to Mehico. Too hard you say? Too many you say? BS! You can find them all just about every other weekend marching down our streets demanding "rights".
"If you answer "no" to these questions, then why does the govt have the right to keep Social Security taxes they paid?" Why does the government have the right to keep profits a drug dealer makes? Or interest a robber makes on stolen money? If Ken Lay returned all the money that was lost on ENRON, should he be allowed to keep any interest earned?
Anyway, as Wayne says, no matter what your position on this issue, Mike! is blatantly misstating Cantwell's position."
BS! He perfectly stated her position.
Posted by: pbj on October 11, 2006 02:29 PMYou say you don't want to reward people for being here illegally. Fair enough. But we're talking about people who are subsequently made legal. We haven't totally forgiven them, but we've apparently forgiven them enough to make them legal. If you think they're so awful, don't make them legal! But if they deserve to be made legal -- and even most Republicans agree that some do -- why don't you think they deserve credit for Social Security taxes that they've paid?
Palouse@44: The term "benefits", as used in the USA with regard to Social Security, means payments, not credits. (Try googling "social security benefits"). Mike! knows that, and he knows he's lying.
Posted by: Bruce on October 11, 2006 03:08 PMWe should not steal their funds or empty their Social Security accounts.
That is a flat out lie.
The idea that every person has a Social Security account is pure fiction that the left has been pushing for decades.
Money one pays into Social (In)Security is paid to current retirees, not deposited into an account with that person's name on it.
The SSA may track your "contributions," i.e., taxes, but that's used to calculate your benefit.
One more time....The funds you are forced to pay to the SSA are taxes and are no more yours than the income taxes you pay, and you don't have an "account" with the SSA into which your taxes are put and saved for you.
Posted by: Obi-Wan on October 11, 2006 03:44 PMBut it's wrong to draw an analogy between a car thief and an illegal immigrant who pays Social Security taxes. There are nothing illegal about an illegal immigrant's wages -- they are his (hers). I didn't say the govt is stealing them, but the govt has no right (legally or morally) to take someone's assets just because that person is here illegally.
And you're wrong to say credits are benefits. Technically, sure, credits are a benefit of Social Security. And technically, Darcy Burner was an executive at Microsoft. But it's a lie to call Burner a "Microsoft executive", and it's a lie to call credits "Social Security benefits". And Mike!, who has received quite a few benefits!!! from an insurance company!!!!!, knows he's lying.
Posted by: Bruce on October 11, 2006 04:55 PMNo, it doesn't, and no (HELL NO!) it shouldn't!
Posted by: alphabet soup on October 11, 2006 05:06 PM***
***
Alrighty everyone. There's only one way to settle this.
I propose an additional, hour long debate in Olympia between Mike! and ~Maria~. The topic of the debate would be limited to Medicare and Social Security.
We all know that Mike! would show up well prepared.
And that ~Maria~ is just too busy trying to run out the clock, to have a real debate on the issues that are truly important to most Washingtonians.
Posted by: Brent in Ferndale on October 11, 2006 05:14 PMBill H
Posted by: Bill H on October 11, 2006 05:34 PMBS! EVERYTHING about an ILLEGAL'S wages are ILLEGAL! EVERYTHING!!! They use a FAKE Social Security numebr to aid them in the commission of their CRIME!
" I didn't say the govt is stealing them, but the govt has no right (legally or morally) to take someone's assets just because that person is here illegally.
The govt has every right to do whatevever they wish to illegal invaders.
And you're wrong to say credits are benefits. Technically, sure, credits are a benefit of Social Security. And technically, Darcy Burner was an executive at Microsoft. But it's a lie to call Burner a "Microsoft executive", and it's a lie to call credits "Social Security benefits". And Mike!, who has received quite a few benefits!!! from an insurance company!!!!!, knows he's lying."
You are a damned liar. People here illegally have NO RIGHT TO WORK, NOR RIGHT TO ANY DAMN THING> They are invaders!!!!!!!
Get THAT THROUGH YOUR THICK LIBERAL SKULL!!!
Anyone who has come here illegally should NEVER EVER be granted citizenship- EVER - contrary to what Maria Cantwell wants to do.
They should be shot as enemy invaders.
Credits definitely are a benefit as they determine how much payment a person will receive from Social In-Security. You know damn well how it works and are doing everything you can to spin this. But the truth is that Cantwell voted to allow criminals to profit from their crimes. An illegal who gets credits for their illegal period here in the US will get much more in SS payments than if their credits they accumulated while using a fake SSN during their invasion of our country were not counted.
Posted by: pbj on October 12, 2006 12:19 AMIllegal workers are stealing money. When they show up in emergency rooms, they steal our money. When Democrats subsidize illegals by granting in-state tuition to their children - they are stealing our money. When they cause more police to be needed for the extra crime they bring, they steal our money. When they are here illegally, every penny they get is ill gotten gain.
And no, the law doesn't say it is their money. They are not US citizens, they are here illegally. You want to reward them for invading our country because Democrats want to buy off their illegal votes.
You never answered my question - should a corporate criminal CEO that stole millions and earned interest off it be allowed to keep the interest earned if they return the stolen money and do their time?
You would grant MORE rights to ILLEGALS than to our OWN American citizens. You liberals are warped in teh head in your lust for power.
Posted by: pbj on October 12, 2006 12:27 AM
Readers should understand that the benefits a recipient receives from Social Security is based upon the highest 35 years of employment. Thus, if an invader can claim those years that they were illegally here in this country, their benefit payment amount will be larger than if they could not. Maria Cantwell voted against disallowing the credits for their illegal work years. Thus, Maria Cantwell voted to allow them to receive MORE benefits from Social Security then they would ever get if their illegally gotten gains were not included in the calculation.
Furthermore, as has been pointed out, Social Security is NOT like a 401K. There is no account. It is a pay as you go system. Today's workes pay into the system to support the current generation of recipients.
So basically, your children will be having to slave extra hard to pay the extra taxes that will be taken out to reward the illegal invaders for their invasion of our nation.
From http://www.aarp.org/research/socialsecurity/benefits/aresearch-import-354-FS59R.html
" The Benefit Calculation
A worker's Social Security benefits--either retirement or disability--are based upon his/her time and earnings in Social Security-covered employment and the age at which s/he leaves the labor force.
The number on which most initial Social Security disability, survivors, and retirement benefits are based is called the Primary Insurance Amount (PIA). It is reached through a two-step calculation: 1) the Average Indexed Monthly Earnings calculation, and 2) application of the PIA formula rates.
Average Indexed Monthly Earnings1
First, a worker's 35 highest-earning years2 are indexed to wage growth3, up to the year the worker turns age 60. These wage-indexed annual earnings are then averaged (divided by 35 years), and divided by 12 months, to get a monthly amount. The result is called the Average Indexed Monthly Earnings (AIME). The AIME expresses a worker's lifetime earnings in terms of today's wage levels."
Posted by: pbj on October 12, 2006 12:45 AMFirst, Social Security credits are not "assets", so the government isn't "taking" something. The credits are being earned by someone who is ineligible to receive them.
Second, credits are benefits, because without credits, those benefits cease to exist. Take currency, what is it? It's just a piece of paper, completely worthless. But it's the backing of the US government which gives it value. Without credits, social security benefits similarly have no value.
Posted by: Palouse on October 12, 2006 10:09 AMSame doctrine as for driving with no license - if you are driving with no license, and you are in an accident where you are not at fault in any way, you STILL get the ticket and bear full responsibility because you had NO RIGHT to be driving in the first place.
I'm sick and damned tired of illegal immigrants of ALL colors/shapes/sizes/ethnic backgrounds being protected in ANY WAY shape or form by our constitution. The constitution was written by and for United States Citizens.
As for the root question of Maria's support for granting SS benefits to immigrants, I'm ok with LEGAL immigrants getting any benefits they are entitled to, with the clock starting the moment they become citizens, and not a moment prior to that. I'm also NOT ok with ANY illegal alien obtaining citizenship - they should be sent home and be forced to wait in their country of origin while the citizenship process is allowed to run it's course. Additionally, anyone having come to this country illegally should have their application DENIED and not be able to reapply for citizenship or even a visa status. They've already proven that they are unwilling and unable to follow our laws, and are CRIMINALS. We should NOT allow criminals in the country.
Posted by: Paul on October 13, 2006 10:52 PM