Posted on 01/16/2005 8:00:22 PM PST by UCAL
Count Rep. Rob Simmons, R-2nd District, as one Republican unwilling to back President Bush's apparent push to overhaul Social Security.
Well, depending on whom you ask.
Simmons, a self-proclaimed moderate, has said in recent interviews that he does not support altering the program at a time when the nation faces more urgent problems, including insufficient supplies for soldiers in Iraq and an unstable Medicare system.
“People are talking about reforming it,” Simmons said last week. “We don't even have a plan. I have made it pretty clear I don't support privatizing Social Security.”
Pressed on whether he agreed with Bush's call for reform, Simmons replied, “I would not consider that as something I would support.”
Simmons' Democratic rivals, however, say his position has been anything but clear.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee latched onto the issue this week, after Simmons was named in a Washington Post article as a Republican who wouldn't back Bush's plans for partial privatization of the program, which some Republicans have acknowledged would require the reduction of future benefits.
There is “no way” Simmons would support Bush's plan, the paper said. It quoted the congressman as saying that the program will not go bankrupt any time soon.
“When does that program go belly up? 2042,” Simmons was quoted as saying. “I will be dead by then.”
DCCC officials lashed out at what they called Simmons' “cavalier attitude” and accused him of “flip-flopping” on Social Security because he has previously advocated adding private investment accounts to Social Security, as Bush has long suggested.
Simmons signed on to a policy letter in the spring of 2001 that was sent to the President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security. The letter said any reform “must protect the benefits of all current retirees and those nearing retirement,” but also said an overhaul should “offer younger workers the opportunity to improve their rates of return using personal retirement accounts,” according to text provided by Simmons' staff.
To hear Democrats tell it, that signals support for privatization. They said Simmons' recent comments show him waffling in the face of public opposition to changing the popular program.
“Here is the thing: Seniors today rely and depend on Social Security, and because of Rob Simmons' flip-flopping they cannot rely and depend on Rob Simmons,” said Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., the new DCCC chairman, in a telephone interview. “You cannot trust the last word. He's only as good as his last word.”
The “I'll be dead” comment, said a DCCC spokesman, was a “flippant, callous remark.”
Simmons' staff bristled at the Democratic criticism, saying their boss had only been pointing out that he, at 62, is not far from the age of many Social Security recipients, and has more immediate concerns than the program running out of money.
The congressman is opposed to privatization of the program, they said, which they differentiated from his support for private investment accounts in the future. He has no plans to back the introduction of those right now, aides said.
“Back then ... Rob felt that was something he could support,” said Todd Mitchell, Simmons' chief of staff, in an interview this week.
Mitchell noted that the letter to the presidential commission predated the terrorist attacks of September 2001 and the subsequent market downturn, as well as the invasion of Iraq.
“I think Rob reserves the right to look at that letter in the light that that was in early 2001,” said Mitchell, “and a lot has changed since then.
“If you fast-forward to today, again ... Simmons basically says he can't support the private accounts when there are more pressing needs.”
That doesn't mean never, however.
Simmons' office also provided a statement of his position on the program, which said he would support “giving young workers more options for their retirement as long as those options do not reduce the benefits of current retirees.”
Simmons has won re-election in large part because of his ability to persuade voters in this Democratic-leaning district that he's willing to break with Bush on some social issues. It was just such a departure that got noticed this week in Washington, where political observers already seem to be counting votes for the president's as-yet unannounced legislation.
Simmons' remarks to the Post won him a mention in the influential, left-leaning Web log Talking Points Memo, which added him to a group it calls the “Conscience Caucus,” made up of Republicans who appear unwilling to go along with Bush on changing Social Security. Democrats who have not said the same are relegated to the “Fainthearted Faction.”
It's not like he's a Senator. We own the House. Tom DeLay is God. It's the RINO Senators that need to be staked on an anthill first. To crib from this RINO sob, "there are more important elected officials that need pressing."
Simmons' staff bristled at the Democratic criticism, saying their boss had only been pointing out that he, at 62, is not far from the age of many Social Security recipients, and has more immediate concerns than the program running out of money.
Ah, but Simmons has a special retirement plan. If the politicians had to rely on Social Security, you can bet your ass there would be big time changes made!
It's relevant to me because I live in the district and I've campaigned for the guy. I don't mind the vote against reform because I want the guy to survive. I just don't understand what he gains by speaking out. Why piss off your base?
Great logic -I'll be dead before it's bankrupt. Just the far sightedness we expect from our elected officials.
It would have been nice if the article had stated which state he is from. I found it. Connecticut. Go figure.
I should have added that. It's not the paper's fault. If you're in New London, Connecticut and reading the New London Day's Connecticut Politics section.......
I don't mind the vote against reform because I want the guy to survive.
Please explain. You'd rather the guy survive than social security? I'm confused here. If we don't reform it, it's not gonna be there for a whole lot of folks. But you don't mind the vote against fixing it, as long as "the guy" survives???
Yeah, it's ok. It's a big country, with hundreds of thousands of towns local town papers. Most folks just assume that everyone in the country will know where THEIR town is! =)
I think another poster summed it up best when he wrote that it would not have a problem passing the house. Its the Senate where the road blocks will go up.
This is the highest democrat registration district in the Country with a Republican representative. We're lucky to have Congressman Simmons instead of another liberal democrat.
My point is, be quite; vote against it and stay out of the limelight.
This is the highest democrat registration district in the Country with a Republican representative. We're lucky to have Congressman Simmons instead of another liberal democrat.
My point is, be quite; vote against it and stay out of the limelight.
I don't know the man's record, so I can't speak on that, BUT...... the congressman's PARTY is not as important as his VOTING RECORD sometimes. If his votes are not conservative, he is a RINO. If he seeks to block or stand against the conservative base, he is a RINO. We do not need any more of those.
You say: "Be quite (you mean quiet, right?), vote against it (vote AGAINST refoming the social security mess?), and stay out of the limelight."
Staying out of the limelight and being quiet is precisely what Republicans have done WRONG for so many years! The dems have been wiping the floor with us because we didn't stand up and FIGHT. Those days are over!
THOSE DAYS ARE OVER!
With all due respect, and I agree with you on the issue, Simmons has no base to go home to, in his district.
Simmons is probably the most vulnerable Republican congressman out there for 2006, and this is one issue he cannot win on in his district, unfortunately.
His activism bothers me, though.
I understand your point but you have to know the district. Even the Republicans (20%) are liberal to moderate.
I guess the question is, what's worse - a liberal democrat or a moderate Republican (RINO)? If you lived in Massachusetts and had to choose between Ted Kennedy and his liberal Republican opponent, how would you vote?
I guess I hold Republicans in safe districts to a higher standard.
Gilman of New York was chair, and his staff was sharp, efficient, motivated.
Gejdenson's people reeked smarmy, arrogant inertia--what a pity when he had his ass kicked.
Simmons has a history with CIA and was a Goldwater appointment to staff director of Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
I would not be too worried if Rahm Emmanuel says you are a flipflopper.
Rahm Emmanuel--keep it up, Democrats. Between Rahm Emmanuel, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid, 2006 looks better and better.
Looking behind the partisan journalistic slant, if in doubt, call Simmon's office tomorrow for a statement, then ping me back here.
As a matter of fact, had John Kerry been elected, Rob Simmons would be alive in 2042. It's Bush's fault.
Righteous Wing
Shundler won after the corrupt democratic administration ran the city into the ground. Following his righting of the ship, the city voted in new democrats.
Conservatives can win municipal elections because issues such as abortion, social security, national defense, etc. do not play a major roll. The voters look at the city falling down around them and say "what the heck - what's the harm".
If you come into Eastern Connecticut campaigning as a conservative - down the line - Republican, you'll lose. I don't know for sure but I bet Shundler did not carry Jersey City in his run for government. I bet all those dems said "thanks - great job" but we don't want you in Trenton.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.