A New Word For You: "Mekhutonim"-- Who Is Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky And Why Is She Unfit For Congress 2 Decades Later?

Hoyer will do Margolies-Mezvinsky as much good next year as he did for another corrupt conservative hack, Tim Holden, last year

The campaign for the Northeast Philadelphia/Montgomery County congressional seat being vacated by Allyson Schwartz is starting to heat up. You're probably aware that Blue America has endorsed state Senator Daylin Leach, the liberal lion of the state legislature. This new video explains why we're so enthusiastic about his candidacy. He's one of 4 candidates running, a cast of characters that includes state Rep. Brendan Boyle an ambitious and virulent anti-Choice fanatic, the choice of the corrupt Philly Machine and of the forces trying to dismantle public education in Pennsylvania; physician Val Arkoosh who knows a lot about medicine and public health policy and... nothing else; and Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky, an increasingly loopy one-term congresswoman from 1992 whose son, a Goldman Sachs investment banker, married Chelsea Clinton.

Conventional wisdom-- relentlessly stoked by Margolies herself-- is that she was defeated in 1994 by Republican Jon Fox (who she had narrowly beaten in 1992) because of her heroic vote for Clinton's 1993 budget. She was the "deciding vote." But that isn't the full story. Margolies is a liberal on women's issues but, for a Democrat, a raging conservative on issues of economic justice. A few days ago she told the Philadelphia Daily News why she almost didn't vote for the Clinton budget. She claims President Clinton asked her "What would it take?" to get her to vote for the budget. "I said I wanted to talk about entitlements, I wanted further cuts, and I'll only be your last vote-- if you need it. And he did." Cutting entitlements and screwing working families is the kind of Democrat Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky has always been-- and that's one old dog that is definitely not learning any new tricks.

If you go to http://www.margoliesforcongress.com/ you come upon a Phildadelphia Inquirer story from June, 1994, "Social Security Curbs Proposed Marjorie Margolies-mezvinsky Is Touting Major Changes. Her GOP Foe, Jon Fox, Opposes The Plan." Voters in PA-13 should read it carefully. This is a candidate who is eager to cut Social Security and other benefits for working families. She sounds like a garden variety Republican, although the Republican that beat her in 1994 was more a defender of Social Security than she was-- and the way she disappointed the Democratic base and kept voters away from the polls is why she was really defeated that year. Her proposal to cut back on Social Security for retired Americans was even too conservative for Bill Clinton, who pointedly told her that "we do not deal with a problem like the deficit by (creating) income stagnation among the elderly."

Calling it the first fruit of last year's conference on entitlement spending, U.S. Rep. Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky announced legislation yesterday that would raise the retirement age for Social Security recipients and limit their cost-of-living adjustments.

Margolies-Mezvinsky, who is seeking re-election, said the proposals would ensure Social Security's solvency and keep her pledge to control the costs of politically sensitive entitlement programs.

Social Security officials predicted in April that the trust fund would go broke in 35 years because of demographic shifts that would leave fewer workers supporting more retirees.

Margolies-Mezvinsky's proposal is a political gamble for the freshman Democrat, who is already in the doghouse with many constituents because of her 11th-hour switch last year in favor of President Clinton's budget bill and tax increases.

The current legislation, which Margolies-Mezvinsky is sponsoring with Minnesota Democrat Timothy J. Penny, would raise the retirement age to 70 by the year 2013-- beginning in 1999 and increasing the age by four months annually.

The retirement age currently ranges from 65 for those born before 1938 to 67 for those born after 1959. Those who retire earlier get reduced benefits.

The proposal would give only the bottom 20 percent of Social Security recipients the full cost-of-living adjustment, which is tied to the Consumer Price Index. Other recipients would receive a flat cost-of-living adjustment equal to that for recipients at the 20th percentile.

Margolies-Mezvinsky had made Clinton's attendance at December's entitlement conference at Bryn Mawr College a condition for her support of his budget. The budget increased taxes for affluent workers and for single Social Security recipients with incomes over $34,000 and couples with incomes over $44,000.

Although Clinton attended the conference, he said there should be only minor unspecified changes in Social Security. "We do not want to deal with a problem like the deficit by (creating) income stagnation among the elderly," Clinton said.

White House officials could not be reached for comment yesterday.

Social Security is among the touchiest issues for Congress, due in part to the lobbying strength of the American Association of Retired Persons, which claims 33 million members.

"They're not opposed to this," Margolies-Mezvinsky said. "We've been working with them so that we get their input."

But Martin Corry, AARP's director of federal affairs, said he was unaware of any contact between his group and Margolies-Mezvinsky since December.

He said AARP would oppose any form of "means testing" such as Margolies-Mezvinsky's proposal on cost-of-living adjustments.

"Changing the retirement age to age 70 is really premature," he added. ''There may well be changes in the retirement age, and they can be done gradually. I've seen nothing to suggest it needs to go to 70."

Republican Jon D. Fox, who will face Margolies-Mezvinsky in November, said he opposed her proposal, as well as another Democratic plan to increase payroll taxes.

Fox said he would have to study the issue further before making a proposal of his own.

"I'm going to be coming out in this campaign with proposals dealing with the protection of Social Security," Fox said in a telephone interview. "I'll be getting back to you on them."

Margolies-Mezvinsky said she did not know how the proposals would play in her largely Republican Montgomery County district.

"My feeling is it's the right thing to do. I think that what happens when you get to Washington is you see people saying to their constituents what they want to hear rather than what they need to hear."

Boyle, the other conservative in the race has been pounding her relentlessly, fearing they will split the conservative vote. He's been all too eager to point out that she's not just a little senile, she's a lot corrupt. She finally filed her financial disclosure forms last week-- from 1992 and 1994!

State Rep. Brendan Boyle, one of three opponents for Margolies in the 2014 Democratic primary election, was waiting to pounce on her financial details.

Boyle's reason: He wants to remind voters of a very messy financial situation Margolies, now the front-runner for her old seat after declaring her candidacy May 30, went through 12 years ago.

A U.S. Bankruptcy Court judge rejected a Chapter 7 filing from Margolies in 2001 because it conflicted with financial statements she filed in 1999 and 2000 for a brief run for the U.S. Senate.

In those statements, Margolies said she and her now ex-husband, Ed Mezvinsky, held assets worth at least $1.3 million.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Diane Weiss Sigmund, in a 33-page ruling, said Margolies was "an intelligent, highly educated and sophisticated person" who handled budgetary issues in the U.S. House.

She flatly rejected claims from Margolies that, "like many women of her generation," she let her husband handle money matters.

"Her deference to her husband on financial matters, especially with knowledge that he was not managing them well, is at best puzzling, and her attempts to justify her continued ignorance of her finances as gender-related are inconsistent with her clear competency to discover the surrounding facts," the judge wrote.

Margolies on June 19 sought a 60-day extension from the U.S. House's Committee on Ethics to file her financial disclosure form.

She missed her deadline to file the form on Aug. 30. Her campaign told Clout it meant to file for a 90-day extension.

"Marjorie Margolies has been dogged for the last 20 years with questions about finances, statements of financial interests and lawsuits," Boyle spokesman Ken Snyder said yesterday. "A court even rejected Margolies' claim of bankruptcy. We hope going forward Margolies will be more transparent with her finances." Mezvinsky, a former U.S. House member from Iowa, served five years in federal prison for defrauding banks and investors out of $10.4 million. Margolies was never accused of wrongdoing but was caught up for a time in a series of lawsuits.

Margolies responded by questioning Boyle's courage, since he had a campaign staffer take his shots at her and would not be interviewed yesterday.

"My campaign is about asking voters of the 13th congressional district to send folks to Washington who have the courage to stand up for what they believe-- no matter the political consequences," Margolies said via email. "I am confident the voters of the 13th understand the difference between courage and cowardice: a personal attack from a decade ago made from behind the trousers of a campaign spokesperson is no profile in courage."

We have enough congressmembers from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party already. Margolies-Mezvinsky had her day and blew it badly. She's not just part of the past; she's a bad part of the past.




UPDATE: Q4 was a disaster for Margolies-Mezvinsky

Despite a big push from Hoyer and his grotesquely corrupt K Street contingent, the conservative Democrat who was too scared to show up for the district's debate with the other candidates, only raised $209K. Only? Well, she spent $224K in the quarter.