Porter criticized on Social Security

Suzanne Struglinski

Friday, Feb. 25, 2005 | 10 a.m.

WASHINGTON -- Rep. Jon Porter, R-Nev., is on a short list of Republican lawmakers under attack by Democrats for allegedly having inconsistent positions or waivering support for President Bush's proposal to privatize Social Security.

On Wednesday the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee circulated political ads and surveys done for the 2002 and 2004 election, pointing to what they deem are Porter's conflicting stances on personal accounts for Social Security reform.

Porter has said he is opposed to privatization but could support a portion of Social Security payroll taxes being invested in some form of personal account.

Porter spokesman Adam Mayberry said Porter wants to keep the federal government in control of Social Security. Mayberry said Democrats are trying to use the word " 'privatization' to scare seniors."

Mayberry dismissed the attacks as a "war of semantics." Mayberry said Porter "encourages debate on all ideas" and has not made a firm decision on the president's proposal to create personal accounts.

"The president doesn't really have a plan yet either, he's just laid out some principles," Mayberry said. "At the end of the day, there may be 435 ideas."

"Keep in mind, we don't have a bill yet," he said.

Mayberry said Porter was unavailable to answer questions himself because he was ill.

The fierce debate over Social Security this week shifted from Washington to the home districts of the nation's lawmakers as they spent a week-long Presidents Day break. Democrats sought to fan the opposition to Bush's proposal as many Republicans sought to build support for it.

Wary of party leaders and the White House but aware of lukewarm public support for Bush's outline, several dozen Republicans, including Porter, have not leapt to embrace Bush's proposals.

Last week House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md., released a list of what he said were 29 Republicans, including Porter, who were on record opposing "all or major parts of President Bush's plan."

"If these 29 people were telling their constituents the truth, there are not the votes to pass the president's outline," Hoyer told the newspaper The Hill.

Republicans said Hoyer put Republicans on his list who have said they were opposed to "privatization" but generally supported some form of personal accounts.

Democrats say Porter isn't making his stance clear on what is the top issue in Congress this year.

"He's in for a rendezvous with his record," DCCC spokesman Greg Speed said. "This is going to be a very real issue for the next two years."

Democrats circulated a 2002 ad from Porter's first congressional campaign saying he opposes Social Security privatization. They also distributed a 2004 AARP election survey response in which Porter opposed "creating private individual accounts out of Social Security."

In a 2002 National Taxpayers Union survey, Democrats highlighted Porter's agreement with a statement that he would "vote for a gradual transition to a system that creates obligatory personally-controlled retirement accounts with reasonable safeguards," among other Social Security statements.

But in a copy of the National Taxpayers Union survey, a hand-written note by the Porter campaign reads "would consider at correct time personally controlled accounts."

Porter was also quoted in the media during the 2004 campaign saying: "A personal savings account is an option and something that we'll probably start some debate on this year."

DCCC spokesman Greg Speed said Porter needs to make clear where he stands.

Porter believes that under any reform current Social Security beneficiaries must be protected, the retirement age should not increase and Congress should not create new taxes or increase current ones, Mayberry said. He would not answer questions about Porter's opinion on how personal accounts should be managed, only saying that Porter is willing to listen to the debate.

Speed said any private accounts would put Social Security in the hands of Wall Street and cut benefits. He called Porter's written-in or clarifying remarks "a distinction without a difference."

"He flip-flopped even on this survey rather than just leveling and saying where he is," Speed said. "Why did he check yes? It doesn't make any sense. He felt he needed to agree with the interest group."

In the 2004 AARP survey, Porter wrote: "Social Security benefits guaranteed by the federal government should be administered by the federal government. Any attempt to change the format of Social Security poses a threat to the system of financial security for the elderly and disabled that has existed since 1938."

Deborah Moore of the AARP office in Nevada said the AARP survey question "certainly implies he opposes creating individual private accounts" but that there could be a "small margin of interpretation" that he is just referring to the program's control by the federal government.

Moore noted that any private accounts would by definition not be managed by the Social Security Administration.

"I can't imagine they would want to create another level of bureaucracy," she said, adding that if that is the case, it would add significant cost to an already-expensive idea. AARP opposes putting any part of Social Security into personal accounts.