How Do Progressives Explain The Affordable Care Act To Their Constituents? Matt Cartwright And Lee Rogers

Matt Cartwright wasn't in Congress when the Affordable Care Act passed. People taken in by conservative lies-- or who are freaked out about the incompetent roll out of the website-- can't really blame Cartwright the way they're trying to blame other Democrats in Congress. Cartwright could have laid low and let the battle rage on around him. But that's not the Matt Cartwright I know and that's not the Matt Cartwright Blue America backed when he was running against corrupt Blue Dog Tim Holden in 2012. As Ed O'Keefe reported in Monday's Washington Post Cartwright is leading on health care reform and explaining the bill to his northeast Pennsylvania constituents-- despite all the negativity that other, less courageous, congressmen are ducking. I used to live in Monroe County, which is part of Cartwright's district. Plenty of people there need the benefits of the Affordable Care Act.

Cartwright spent his first year in office preparing constituents for “the ACA”-- he never calls it “Obamacare”-- and reminding them to sign up for benefits at HealthCare.gov.

He hoped to spend time during an extended October recess helping people sign up for health insurance, but a sputtering Web site and broken campaign promises are forcing him to defend the law. He still believes in the law and his support remains strong, but he knows the troubled rollout has shaken his constituents’ confidence.

“If you want to give me a good faceful for one of my political positions, I can take it,” he told about 100 of them gathered inside a small community theater Friday.

From the stage, Cartwright said President Obama “was out over his ski tips” when he said Americans would be able to keep their health-care plans if they liked them. In reality, “if you like your policy, and it still remains grandfathered in, and it doesn’t change, and it applies within the law, then you can keep it,” he said. “And he should have said that.”

“Shoulda, woulda, coulda!” a woman shouted from the front rows.

“He should have said that,” Cartwright said again for emphasis.

Embarrassed and frustrated by the early weeks of the health insurance exchange’s rollout, Cartwright is still convinced that the law will work, so he is fighting back with information and brutal honesty.

“I’m the last person who’s going to sit here and say this is a perfect law,” he told the crowd. “But it is the law, and it’s up to us to wrap our hands around it, to get together and learn about it and to do the best for Americans under this law.”

...Cartwright fielded 14 questions about the health law over 90 minutes. He was flanked onstage by Athena Ford, advocacy director for the Pennsylvania Health Access Network, and Jim Palmquist, president of the Pennsylvania chapter of AARP. Ford and Palmquist deftly answered detailed questions about coverage and eligibility requirements while Cartwright dealt with rumor control.

Are lawmakers exempt from the new law? “We are not,” he said. “It’s very clear that I will be enrolling in the Affordable Care Act.”

Is the Internal Revenue Service competent enough to enforce the penalties for not signing up for insurance? “All they’re being asked to do under this system is to keep track of tax credits and tax deductions,” he said.

Inviting local professionals to handle the detailed questions was smart, said Bruce Marianelli, 63, one of many Republicans who showed up for the meeting.

“If it was just him onstage, I don’t think he would have left here with skin on,” Marianelli said.

Dusan Neumann, 68, agreed. “I hardly can understand that a government that can eavesdrop on the private conversations of Angela Merkel cannot put together a decent Web site that a 15-year old Chinese hacker could hack in 15 minutes,” he said.

Neumann did not vote for Cartwright last year, but after listening to the congressman he said: “He scored better than I would expect. He was able to admit that there are serious flaws.”

And even some of Cartwright’s Republican critics said they learned something.

“You know what I learned? The fact that there are still people who will be uninsured,” said Dorothy Daubert, 70. “I just assumed this was going to cover everybody or else they’d be on Medicaid.”

The presentation was exactly what Cartwright’s liberal Democratic supporters wanted to see. Guy Anthony, 61, eagerly wants the health law to succeed and refuses to believe television news reports about the early struggles. “If Apple had come up with a new iPod and the Web site was so jammed because everybody wanted it and they couldn’t get through, it’d be called a raving success,” he said.

“Democrats should be a lot more aggressive and a lot more assertive in defending their positions,” Anthony added later. “One thing that’s true of Republicans-- it’s a strength-- is that they know how to stick together and move their agenda forward, whereas the Democrats do not. They’re too wishy-washy.”

…“I think people appreciate honesty, and there are a couple of things we have to surrender, throw up the white flag about,” he said.

Despite the setbacks, Cartwright is clear about his bottom line. “The big picture is that ACA is a great thing, and in the long run it’s going to be one of the greatest things for this country,” he said. “History will smile on the ACA.”

Certainly, there are good things about the ACA but, basically, it was a conservative Republican strategy that Democrats agreed to as a compromise with Blue Dogs and New Dems who refused to support single-payer… Medicare for all. History will smile on the ACA when it leads to single payer health care. That's certainly the way most of the Blue America candidates have expressed it. Lee Rogers, who nearly defeated Buck McKeon in 2012 and is planning to finish the job in 2014 is a prominent, internationall-known surgeon and the national spokesperson for the American Diabetes Association. He expressed it from the perspective of a physician:

"I'm open to listening to all options, but as I see it right now the only system where both [patients and providers] win is a single payer system, like Medicare-for-all. But the big losers would be the health insurance companies. Just the opposite of Obamacare, where the big insurers made out like bandits-- 46 million new customers and no caps on premiums. Many people are afraid of single payer healthcare, thinking it is a government takeover of healthcare. It's not a take over; the government already controls healthcare. Medicare's administrative costs are about 3%, compared with up to 25% for private insurers being profit and going to investors and CEOs. Single payer healthcare would be good for our economy. Business should really be embracing it. The second largest expense for most businesses is health insurance. In 1950, Americans spent 3% of their income on health insurance or healthcare, now we spend 17%. Imagine that cost being shifted to a more efficient system with lower overhead-- where treatments were offered to patients based on their levels of evidence. Imagine no pre-existing conditions, preventative care covered, and prescriptions covered. Single payer can accomplish this. A larger focus on preventative care would improve the economy, because sick employees are less productive. If we reduce obesity, and its related diseases like diabetes, arthritis, back pain, we can have more productive workers."

Steve King, An Iowa Republican Satan Sent To Plague America

When Blue America asked our supporters to pick the worst congressman in the country for an ad, loudmouthed Iowa reactionary Steve King was a finalist. In the end Virginia Foxx won and the ad is marvelous but I have to admit we would have enjoyed taking on King as well. He's a negative political force from the western end of the otherwise moderate, populist state. And this year he has a formidable opponent in Matt Campbell, who was endorsed Sunday by the Des Moines Register, which called King an "embarrassment" to the state. "He is provocative, not focused on getting results for Iowans. He is reactive, not visionary."

There is not enough space in this editorial to remind readers of all the inflammatory statements King has made. Here are a few: suggesting terrorists would be "dancing in the streets" if President Barack Obama were elected and calling the "vast majority" of anti-war protesters "communists, socialists and radicals."

During a recent meeting at the Register, we asked King if he regretted any of his comments. He stood by them, saying it served the country to "tell the truth." He clarified a statement he had made on Abu Ghraib prisoner abuses in Iraq as being "little more than hazing."

King has shown Iowa what kind of representative he is. It's time for voters to replace him.

This week I was going through the congressional ratings list just released by the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America and I noticed that King, a self-proclaimed super-patriot, was given a failing grade. IAVA has taken a position that King has not supported veterans with his votes in Congress, and, in fact, that he's among the worst Members of Congress when it comes to veterans' issues.

But then it turns out that King was another GOP chickenhawk, cheering wars while personally avoiding the military, much the way Cheney did. In fact... exactly the way Cheney did. In 1967, 1968 and 1969 he avoided the military draft with a series of deferments. Documents obtained from the National Archives and Records Administration confirm that King-- Selective Service number 13-24-49-88-- obtained three student draft deferments during those years, one for each year. Student deferments carried a “2S” designation.

Classification records are a matter of public information and are available upon written request. Congressman King’s classification record shows that he obtained his first “2S” deferment on October 19th, 1967. Subsequent deferments were granted on December 12th, 1968 and November 17th, 1969. It's similar to my own record in fact. Except for one thing. King dropped out of school-- Northwest Missouri State, Maryville, in 1970, after 3 years. He never earned a degree.

After graduating from Denison High School in Denison, Iowa, in the spring of 1967 and after turning eighteen on May 28th of that year, King registered with the Selective Service as was required by law. All eighteen-year olds were required by law to register. King was mailed his classification questionnaire on June 6th. His initial classification on July 20th, 1967, was “1AG,” which meant that he was immediately available for military service. Sometime after July 20th, 1967, King enrolled at Northwest Missouri State University. He subsequently sought and was granted his first “2S” deferment on October 19th, thus shielding him from the draft.

More than two years later, on November 17th, 1969, Steve King was granted his third student deferment, his second one having been granted on December 12, 1968. Nine days after receiving his third deferment, Nixon signed an amendment to the Military Service Act of 1967 that created the draft lottery. Under the new lottery system, draft deferments were still allowed. Draft-age men could only be exposed to the draft for one year, unless they were in the group of men having deferments when the lottery system was introduced. In the case of those men holding deferments, which would have included King, if they ever allowed their deferments to cease, they would have been exposed to every draft lottery until their 25th birthday.

The first draft lottery took place Dec. 1, 1969, and all men born between 1944 and 1950 were subject to it, including Steve King-- as well as myself. Subsequent lotteries would not involve these men. The lotteries of 1970, 1971 and 1972 involved men born in 1951, 1952 and 1953 respectively and men who had allowed their previous deferments to expire as explained above.

King had received his final deferment two weeks prior on November 17th, 1969. Because he had been receiving deferments under the old draft system, King was still shielded from being drafted in the lottery system as long as he maintained his deferments and stayed in school.

In the first lottery held on December 1st, 1969, 366 numbers were assigned, one for each possible birth date. The birth date of May 28, Steve King’s birth date, was assigned number 308. This was an extremely high number-- and mine was even higher. Anyone receiving that number in 1969 would have been tremendously relieved. The number 308 virtually guaranteed that Steve King would not have been drafted, even if he hadn’t had a student deferment. The highest number drafted that year was, in fact, 195. Furthermore, King’s draft number was assigned to him permanently. This was significant. It meant that he would be protected from the draft by his high number even if he allowed his draft deferment to expire by leaving school.

Unlike myself, King did leave school. He quit Northwest Missouri State University in 1970, right after the lottery numbers were assigned and he was "safe." No reason has ever been publicly offered as to why he chose to leave Northwest Missouri State three years into his college education without earning a degree. During those three years King spent in Maryville, the United States suffered its greatest losses in Vietnam with 39,721 soldiers killed.

King’s departure from school meant his “2S” deferment was no longer valid, but his draft number insulated him in the draft lotteries held in 1970, 1971 and 1972 when more than 306,000 men were drafted into the Army. That number-- 308-- enabled him to avoid military service for the duration of the war. Maintaining his student deferment and continuing his education at Northwest State were no longer necessary to achieve the same end.

Student deferments were not uncommon, but in the case of Steve King the deferments seem in contrast with the public persona that has defined him as a politician in the years since the draft and the Vietnam War. He has been an outspoken proponent of hard-right, conservative principles. He was a strong supporter of the Iraq War and an advocate for increased troop levels. When Democrats gained control of the House of Representatives following the 2006 elections and began questioning the policies of the Iraq War through legislative actions, King frequently voiced strident opposition.

Throughout his political career, King has laced his rhetoric with strong anti-communist, anti-Marxist, anti-socialist, anti-leftist sentiments and remarks. In 2005, he received widespread attention for a comment he made about one of California's most admired and respected Members of Congress. “I think that if Barbara Lee would read the history of Joe McCarthy, she would realize that he was a hero for America.” Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin was a
noted anti-communist crusader in the 1950s.

The Vietnam War that Congressman Steve King of Iowa avoided was a war intended to halt the spread of Communism in Southeast Asia. In a speech delivered on the House floor on May 3rd, 2006, King concluded that we lost that war “because we lost the will in this country.” On April 30th, 1975, Saigon fell to the North Vietnamese. That same year, Steve King started his bull dozing business in Kiron, Iowa. The draft had ended two years earlier in 1973. Steve King never was drafted, nor did he ever volunteer to serve during the Vietnam War.

No one who's followed his political could possibly not include Steve King in a list of the worst and most bloodthirsty warmongers in Washington. It may be hypocritical that he dodged the draft when he had the opportunity to defend his country but it's also ironic that he's among the most virulently opposed to allowing patriotic gay men and women to fight openly for their country in time of war. If you'd like to help Matt Campbell make his case with a donation, you can do it on our page dedicated to candidates fighting Congress' worst homophobes.

The Wall Street Journal Almost Gets It Right On Trade Issues... Almost

In their headline yesterday, the Journal trumpeted Americans Sour On Trade. That's patently ridiculous, of course but what increasing numbers of Americans are souring on are unfair, Big Business "Free Trade" policies that have been used to fatten corporate bottom lines, while systematically dismantling the American manufacturing base, shipping millions of middle class jobs to low wage hellholes, and driving down the cost of labor, long a right wing nirvana, here in America. The Journal, one of the worst proponents of these policies seems almost surprised Americans are "becoming increasing hostile to it," worried that potentially devastating "free trade" pacts with Colombia and South Korea-- being vigorously pushed by Boehner and the Republican House caucus-- could fail. Americans are pro-trade and pro-fair trade and are no longer buying into corporate lies about what they call "free trade."

In the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, more than half of those surveyed, 53%, said free-trade agreements have hurt the U.S. That is up from 46% three years ago and 32% in 1999.

Even Americans most likely to be winners from trade-- upper-income, well-educated professionals, whose jobs are less likely to go overseas and whose industries are often buoyed by demand from international markets-- are increasingly skeptical. [Less likely... but not as less likely as was once thought.]

"The important change is that very well-educated and upper-income people compared to five to 10 years ago have shifted their opinion and are now expressing significant concern about the notion of...free trade," said Bill McInturff, a Republican pollster who helps conduct the Journal survey. Among those earning $75,000 or more, 50% now say free-trade pacts have hurt the U.S., up from 24% who said the same in 1999.

Worries about side effects of trade and outsourcing seem one of the few issues on which Americans of different classes, occupations and political persuasions agree. The vote in the House last week to arm the administration with more levers to pressure China to let its currency rise, and thus restrain its export machine, was bipartisan: 249 Democrats and 99 Republicans voted for it.

...In the recent Journal poll, 83% of blue-collar workers agreed that outsourcing of manufacturing to foreign countries with lower wages was a reason the U.S. economy was struggling and more people weren't being hired; no other factor was so often cited for current economic ills. Among professionals and managers, the sentiment was even stronger: 95% of them blamed outsourcing.

...Some Republicans are reasserting their commitment to trade. The Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in Ohio, former U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman, is leading in the polls. Others are quiet. The House Republicans' recent "Pledge to America" doesn't mention free trade. And of eight tea party Republican candidates for the U.S. Senate, only two mention support for free trade on their websites. In the Journal poll, 61% of those who identify themselves as tea-party supporters say trade agreements have hurt the U.S.

As we mentioned before, when Boehner and the GOP House leadership decided to support China's currency manipulations against the dollar, 99 Republicans immediately crossed the aisle and voted with the Democrats. Boehner was left with a mere 74 Republican votes with his inherently anti-jobs policy. In his own hard-hit state of Ohio, not only did every Democrat support the bill, but so did the three senior Republicans in the state delegation-- Steve LaTourette, Pat Tiberi and Michael Turner-- plus Steve Austria. The only Ohio Congressmembers the would-be Speaker managed to hang onto were pathetic backbenchers who and all dependent on Boehner's goodwill for their campaign financing: Jim Jordan, Bob Latta and Mean Jean Schmidt.

Boehner's Democratic opponent, Justin Coussoule, is basing much of his campaign on getting Ohioans back to work and constantly points out how Boehner's corporate agenda has wrecked Ohio's economy and devastated the middle class in his own district. Many feel it is the primary reason Boehner has adamantly refused every non-partisan invitation to debate the issues with Coussoule. "What's he going to say," asked Coussoule rhetorically, "that shipping good paying American jobs to China and Vietnam is good for the corporate donors who are pouring tens of millions of dollars into GOP campaign coffers this year?"



A Democratic Senator who has fought vigorously against NAFTA and special status for China and the unfair trade policies that have been so destructive to this country is, unsurprisingly, Russ Feingold (D-WI). And he's battling a corporate shill and multimillionaire who has a long record of supporting exactly the kinds of unfair trade policies Americans are sick of, Ron Johnson. "These unfair trade deals," a Wisconsin Democratic Party spokesman told us, "have led directly to at least 64,000 Wisconsin workers losing their jobs. Nationally, 5.6 million jobs were lost or displaced by the trade deficit... While Russ has opposed all unfair trade deals like NAFTA, when Ron Johnson was specifically asked by the media if he supported NAFTA, Most Favored Nation trading status for China and the Korean trade deal currently before the U.S. Senate, Johnson said he supported those deals, saying: 'I’m definitely supportive'.”

In a follow-up question from the media, Johnson celebrated unfair trade deals as “creative destruction." 

WisPolitics Moderator: "You're supportive of these free trade agreements? Because some manufacturers here, they blame those free trade agreements somewhat for hurting their business. I don’t know which companies but I've heard that from executives in Wisconsin because the manufacturing job loss has been so great here in this state.”
 
Ron Johnson: Well in a free market capitalist system there are always winners and losers.  It's creative destruction. That just happens. It's unfortunate. But let’s face it, if it weren't for that we'd still have buggy whip companies.”

Sounds like he's been drinking from the same Ayn Rand cup of nonsense that has made Paul Ryan drunk and dangerous. Ryan, of course, was one of Boehner's top supporters in their failed attempt on behalf of Chinese currency manipulation. Another one of the Republicans who has stuck with Boehner on these misguided trade policies is Iowa sociopath Steve King. He was one of the minority of the minority who voted in favor of Chinese currency manipulation, something that costs Americans billions of dollars in lost jobs growth. You may recall that back in July we spoke with King's opponent, tax expert Matthew Campbell who did a guest post here about preserving Social Security by making the wealthy pay their fair share of the payroll tax, just like everyone else does. This morning Matthew, an avid pro-trade Democrat, told us he would have voted for Tim Ryan's Currency Reform Act for Fair Trade that Steve King voted against. "House GOP members such as Steve King are evidently more concerned with Chinese jobs rather than U.S. jobs. We shouldn't allow China to continue to have an artificial advantage in the global economy that goes against America's self-interest to have a strong manufacturing base and strong middle class in the U.S. It is wrong that China doesn't let is currency float. This is giving the Chinese currency an artificial advantage in the global marketplace of up to 30% that is gutting the American manufacturing base and costing American jobs. Americans are committed to foreign trade, they just want to make sure its fair trade and that it's leaders aren't asleep at the wheel hurting America's self-interest." No one should be elected to Congress, regardless of political party, who doesn't commit to the same point of view. And if you'd like to help Matt out against King, you can do it here.

NY Times Should Be More Careful About The Kinds Of Reporters They Send Out To Do Serious Stories-- Earl Blumenauer's Actual Remedy For Social Security

Wednesday, Villager Matt Bai caused a big ole stir by using his perch at the New York Times to push the elite meme that Social Security has "fixed" through what Digby always points out is tantamount to human sacrifice. He put his thoughts into Earl Blumenauer's mouth, which gave an opportunity for Blumenauer detractors to go on the warpath against one of the most ardent and effective defenders of working families anywhere in America. This was, in part, Blumenauer's statement yesterday when the whole thing started blowing up:

I do not believe, nor have I ever said, that the Social Security trust fund is either like a "lottery" or "make believe money." As my Congressional Website points out, and as anyone who has heard the countless number of presentations that I have given will tell you, the Social Security trust fund is backed by the full faith and credit of the United States Government which has never and will never default on its commitments.

In this 'Decade of Decision,' all Americans must participate in a grown up conversation about essential government services we support. Social Security is a part of that equation-- but an important one. Analysis shows that the trust fund will remain solvent until 2037, yet for the first time in over 25 years, we are spending more than we collect in taxes. So while we have some time to get it right, the longer we wait to have this discussion and to enact solutions, the harder this will become.

I will continue to strongly oppose any effort to privatize or weaken the Social Security system. I also encourage all Americans-- whether they're Progressive, Conservative, or somewhere in between-- to join me as we have the discussion of how Social Security can remain strong and solvent for generations to come, and how we have a meaningful conversation about what America needs and how to pay for it.

Earl's an old friend and I was eager to hear what he had in mind, specifically, regarding the "grown up conversation." As I suspected, it isn't something in Matt Bai's world or that Matt Bai is likely to understand. In fact, Earl Blumenauer knows exactly how to make sure Social Security remains vibrant and how to keep it a beneficial lifeline to seniors and other people who depend on it. The Cat Food Commission and Obama's sick tit-man from Wyoming may never bring it up but, of course, the big problem that threatens the fiscal health of Social Security is the cap on pay roll taxes. Everybody pays-- until the $106,000 mark. Those who make $100,000 and those who make $25,000 pay their share. Those who make a million only pay on the first $106,000. That's got to end. Billionaire freeloading has got to end. This is how Earl put it to me yesterday on the phone:

Social Security is only part of a much bigger budget battle. We have military spending that needs to be reduced and redirected. Since I've been in Congress, we've spent about a quarter trillion dollars on farm subsidies, most of which benefits Agribusiness. Over 80% of our farmers get nothing!

The healthcare reform legislation that the right wing is attacking will help us to improve medical care while controlling costs. This is the big picture that they want to obscure with a false argument about Social Security. Social Security is a problem, but it isn't a crisis. And Social Security funding is eminently fixable. One of the easiest and more equitable fixes is to simply raise the income threshold that is taxed.

As far as I can see, that's the progressive solution to progressive's greatest social accomplishment. Matt Campbell, the intrepid Democrat running against far right fanatic Steve King in Iowa explained it here a few weeks ago:

I believe that further raising the age of eligibility for benefits to age 70 or reducing the level of benefits violates a promise America has made to our seniors. The age at which full social security benefits are paid is already 66 and it will be raised to 67 in 2027. Workers in blue collar and even white collar jobs have their bodies endure a lifetime of work and it is unfair to raise the retirement age further for seniors. I similarly do not support an increase in the payroll tax to 14.4 percent. Working families are already taxed enough.

A preferred means to achieve Social Security solvency is to simply eliminate the payroll cap on wages subject to the tax, although I would include a “doughnut hole” that exempts payroll taxes on earnings between the current cap and $250,000.

In 2010, the Social Security wage base cap is $106,800 (indexed annually) and the Social Security tax is 6.20% paid by the employee and 6.20% paid by the employer. Wages above $106,800 are exempt from Social Security tax. Eliminating the cap on wages subject to social security would largely achieve solvency for the Social Security trust fund. Former Senator John Edwards proposed increasing the taxable maximum as well, but his plan only affected workers that made more than $200,000 per year. It included a “doughnut hole” that exempted payroll taxes on earnings between the current cap and $200,000. President Obama also previously suggested raising the taxable maximum and mentioned the doughnut-hole approach in some appearances. While a U.S. Senator he proposed a plan to tax wages at the normal rate up to the cap and then 0% from the cap to $250,000 and then at 12.4% on wages higher than $250,000.

Utilizing the doughnut-hole approach has merit because wage earners that make between $106,800 and my proposed $250,000 limit are frequently individuals from working class families that secured higher-salaried positions by incurring substantial amounts of college debt. The proposal also is a middle-ground compromise against arguments in the GOP that the elimination of the cap raises the marginal tax rate on such individuals. Eliminating the cap and having a doughnut hole is a much better option than raising the retirement age to 70 or reducing seniors’ Social Security benefits.

I hope Blumenauer can rally his colleagues around this idea. I was happy to see that this week he's endorsed one progressive challenger who agrees with him on it, Justin Coussoule, who's running against a Republican, John Boehner, who would rather dismantle Social Security than fix it and to whom making the wealthy pay their fair share is anathema. The DCCC has told Democratic incumbents to not endorse Democratic challengers but Earl Blumenauer is one who's serious about challenging Boehner's misanthropic and reactionary ideas right is his won backyard and his leadership committee has sent Coussoule some cash and, like Alan Grayson, Raul Grijalva, Barney Frank, Bob Filner and Tim Ryan, an endorsement letter. I'd suggest that the DCCC instead tell it's members about the CBS poll yesterday that makes it clear the public strongly favors letting tax cuts for wealthy expire-- 'cause they either don't know or don't care. And unless they wise up, they'll all be working on K Street next year.

Meet Matt Campbell, The Democrat Running Against Steve King In Iowa's 5th CD

All of western Iowa falls in the 5th CD, including Council Bluffs and Sioux City. It isn't just the most Republican district in the state, it's the only Republican district in the state-- and it is very Republican. In 2004 Bush took 60% of the vote, 10% better than he did statewide. And while Obama won every other CD in the state handily-- taking Iowa with 54%-- he only managed 44% in the 5th. Of the 32 counties that make up the 5th CD, Obama managed to win-- and just by the smallest of margins-- six (Crawford, Greene, Audubon, Carroll, Union and Clarke). And if the congressman from the 5th, Steve King, is nationally recognized as a racist, sociopath and dangerous extremist, back home, he's "one of us." Even though McCain "only" took 54% of the vote there, King walked away with 60%.

A few days ago I met an intrepid and progressive Democrat, Matt Campbell, who's decided to take on Steve King in November. You might ask why he just doesn't move to another district if he wants to go into politics. He's a son of five generations of Iowa farmers and currently lives on a farm that's been in his family since 1880. He's not moving anywhere. His professional career is that of a merger and acquisition and international tax consultant and he holds a J.D. from the University of Iowa College of Law and an LL.M. in taxation from the Georgetown University Law Center. Matt has over 10 years of experience in tax consulting and was a former regional lead at one of the nation's largest accounting firms. Earlier today I asked the question Shouldn't the rich pay their fair share of taxes? and it wasn't a rhetorical question. In fact it's a lot of what Matt and I discussed over the weekend. I asked him to do a guest post for DWT on the topic. If you like what you read below, keep an eye on him or consider volunteering for his campaign or making a contribution.

Modifying the Social Security Cap to Keep America’s Promise to Seniors

-By Matt Campbell, Candidate for Iowa’s 5th District Congressional Seat

Recently there is talk that Congress and the White House will take up Social Security reform. For years there has been discussion and concern regarding the solvency of the Social Security (OASDI) Trust Fund as the last five reports of the Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees have indicated the Social Security Trust fund would become exhausted between 2037 and 2041.

Numerous proposals have been floated in recent years to address the long-term solvency problem and many in the GOP wish to raise the age at which seniors are eligible for social security to age 70 and to reduce social security benefits. The last report of the Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees indicated: “Social Security could be brought into actuarial balance over the next 75 years with changes equivalent to an immediate 16 percent increase in the payroll tax (from a rate of 12.4 percent to 14.4 percent) or an immediate reduction in benefits of 13 percent or some combination of the two."

I believe that further raising the age of eligibility for benefits to age 70 or reducing the level of benefits violates a promise America has made to our seniors. The age at which full social security benefits are paid is already 66 and it will be raised to 67 in 2027. Workers in blue collar and even white collar jobs have their bodies endure a lifetime of work and it is unfair to raise the retirement age further for seniors. I similarly do not support an increase in the payroll tax to 14.4 percent. Working families are already taxed enough.

A preferred means to achieve Social Security solvency is to simply eliminate the payroll cap on wages subject to the tax, although I would include a “doughnut hole” that exempts payroll taxes on earnings between the current cap and $250,000.

In 2010, the Social Security wage base cap is $106,800 (indexed annually) and the Social Security tax is 6.20% paid by the employee and 6.20% paid by the employer. Wages above $106,800 are exempt from Social Security tax. Eliminating the cap on wages subject to social security would largely achieve solvency for the Social Security trust fund. Former Senator John Edwards proposed increasing the taxable maximum as well, but his plan only affected workers that made more than $200,000 per year. It included a “doughnut hole” that exempted payroll taxes on earnings between the current cap and $200,000. President Obama also previously suggested raising the taxable maximum and mentioned the doughnut-hole approach in some appearances. While a U.S. Senator he proposed a plan to tax wages at the normal rate up to the cap and then 0% from the cap to $250,000 and then at 12.4% on wages higher than $250,000.

Utilizing the doughnut-hole approach has merit because wage earners that make between $106,800 and my proposed $250,000 limit are frequently individuals from working class families that secured higher-salaried positions by incurring substantial amounts of college debt. The proposal also is a middle-ground compromise against arguments in the GOP that the elimination of the cap raises the marginal tax rate on such individuals. Eliminating the cap and having a doughnut hole is a much better option than raising the retirement age to 70 or reducing seniors’ Social Security benefits.