<xmp> <body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\07511782355\46blogName\75ConnecticutBLOG\46publishMode\75PUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\46navbarType\75SILVER\46layoutType\75CLASSIC\46searchRoot\75http://connecticutblog.blogspot.com/search\46blogLocale\75en_US\46v\0752\46homepageUrl\75http://connecticutblog.blogspot.com/\46vt\0752618633873490899171', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script> </xmp>

Saturday, April 09, 2005

Where does Nancy Johnson stand on social security?

The Democratic Congreessional Campaign Committee did alittle research on Nancy Johnson they don't seem to know where she stands on privatizing Social Security.

Johnson told the National Taxpayers Union in 2004 that she supported "individual retirement accounts" and answered "Yes" to the following statement:

3. SOCIAL SECURITY CHOICE. I recognize that Social Security will default on its obligations to future retirees unless fundamental reforms are made. Therefore, I will work and vote for a system of Social Security Choice that will allow younger workers to have the choice of investing much of their Social Security taxes in regulated individual retirement accounts. Current retirees and those nearing retirement would not have any change in their Social Security benefits. Social Security Choice will give younger workers ownership of their Social Security accounts, with higher rates of return and better benefits than are possible under the current system.
Yet, in the AARP's 2004 candidate questionnaire Johnson claimed she OPPOSED privatization through private accounts.

It is essential that we guarantee the basic benefits which Social Security provides. I do not support privatizing Social Security. Voluntary private accounts as a supplement to the existing system are an option that should be studied and considered. They may provide an opportunity for more income for future retirees in addition to the guaranteed basic benefit most seniors now enjoy. However, voluntary accounts cannot and must not replace the existing system. But Social Security reform is important because Congress must also address longstanding inequities in the current system. I am a cosponsor of bills that would repeal the government pension offset, the windfall elimination provision, and other unfair adjustments that reduce Social Security payments to deserving seniors.


I think this is what conservatives might call a flip-flop. Has she been hanging out with Kerry?
Why hasn't the media question her about these inconsistent statements?