Is Rep. Heather Wilson (R) of New Mexico on the level?
Wilson represents New Mexico’s 1st congressional district, which is centered on Albuquerque. She won with 54% of the vote in 2004 and 55% in 2002.
We’ve been watching the constituent mail Wilson’s been sending out on Social Security and it reads right from the Speech Code playbook, sounding like she opposes phase-out but not really saying that at all.
So for instance she says she opposes ‘privatization’. But of course under the speech code rules, private accounts aren’t ‘privatization’. She also says “government should not invest Social Security funds in the stock market.” That certainly sounds like it means she’s against phasing out Social Security. But the key word here is “government”. Under private accounts individuals would be investing their money.
I know it may seem like I’m reading this constituent mail a tad too closely at this point. But, as you can imagine, I’ve read a lot of this constituent mail at this point. And representative who want to carve private accounts out of Social Security routinely use this “I won’t let the government invest” language.
All of this makes her no different from a slew of other members of Congress around the country who are trying to bamboozle their constituents on Social Security. The reason I note her, though, is that the AP is running a story today putting Wilson down as opposing the president’s plan.
Rep. Heather Wilson, R-N.M., echoed Democrats’ opposition to Bush’s plan, saying she opposes efforts to invest even a portion of Social Security revenues in private accounts.
“I don’t believe the government should invest Social Security taxes in the stock market,” said Wilson, who represents New Mexico’s Albuquerque-based 1st Congressional District.
So my question is this: Did the AP just get bamboozled by Wilson’s word choice flimflam? Or is she just one of the only Republicans using the English language with its plain meaning when it comes to Social Security?
