Okay, the New York Times EmpireZone
blog followed up with New Jersey Senate candidate Tom Kean to ask for clarification of his Social Security bamboozle. And well, seems there’s still some hedging. You be the judge ….
We note, however, that there has been has been a terminological dispute in political circles over what, exactly, the word âprivatizationâ means. Some Republican pols, when pressed, have said they support some version of private accounts but oppose âprivatization.â To clear things up, we put in a call to Kean campaign spokeswoman Jill Hazelbaker, and asked her to unpack her candidateâs thinking for us. Does Mr. Kean, we asked, favor a change to Social Security that would allow individuals to carve out part of their existing payroll tax payments into individual investment accounts?
Mr. Hazelbakerâs prompt reply: âKean studied the various plans that would privatize social security, decided that it was the wrong way to go, and does not support any measure that privatizes Social Security. So, the answer to your question is no.â
So, we continued, Mr. Kean opposes carve-out accounts by any name?
âNo matter what you call it he opposes it,â she replied.
No matter what you call it, he opposes it?
But what is the it they’re calling? What does he oppose? I think the verbal wiggliness tells the story. He’s hiding behind the ‘privatization’ bamboozle. Thoughts?
And if he’s changed his position to being against phase out, will he commit to opposing it through his whole six year term of office? I think one of the pro-Social Security groups has a pledge they’d be happy to allow him to sign to go on the record.
