Rep. Heather Wilson (R) of New Mexico <$Ad$>can run. But maybe she can’t hide.
You’ve noticed that we here at TPM have been trying to get to the bottom of her Social Security word games. And just last night we expressed our surprise that no reporters had followed up with her to get to the bottom of her verbal gymnastics about whether she’s supporting the president or not.
But it turns out I spoke too soon.
The article isn’t in Nexis yet. And the website is subscriber only. So as yet it’s hard to know it’s out there unless you’re a subscriber. But a story did run in the Albuquerque Journal yesterday. And reporter Michael Coleman honed the questions down to good effect.
Here’s the key passage from Coleman’s sleuthing …
Rep. Heather Wilson, a Republican congresswoman who represents a swing district where Democrats slightly outnumber Republicans, parted ways with her fellow Republicans on the issue.
“I don’t believe the government should invest Social Security taxes in the stock market,” Wilson told me during an interview for a story that ran last Sunday.
What I should have asked her then was: “Do you oppose allowing individuals to invest part of their share of Social Security in private accounts?”
On Wednesday, Wilson gave me another chance to ask that follow-up question. But she repeatedly declined to answer it. Then she denied playing semantics with the issue.
“I don’t play word games and I don’t deal with hypothetical situations,” Wilson told me. “I try to do things to benefit my constituents.”
OK. But, it’s curious that Wilson wouldn’t answer my follow-up question. Despite her dodge, I’m convinced that Wilson truly does have a deep skepticism about opening Social Security to the volatility of the markets. That’s not to say she will definitely vote against some proposal to do so, but I think such a vote would come with a fair amount of personal, or at least political, anguish.
Anguish, indeed.
Later on down in Coleman’s piece there’s this …
She said the president’s proposal would move the system from a system of defined benefits to a system based on defined contributions.
“And I’m not convinced that’s the right way to go,” Wilson said.
Wilson seems to be saying she opposes putting Social Security in private accountsâ period. She certainly didn’t dispute my characterization of her position that way last Sunday. But she’s also a politician, and politicians, when possible, like to keep their options open.
So much need to read tea leaves with Rep. Wilson!
Coleman clearly believes that Wilson is in the Conscience Caucus. But the evidence is awfully ambiguous. We’re going to review Wilson’s application for membership, perhaps even getting a second opinion from our Caucus/Faction outside judge. (Sort of like the ump behind the plate occasionally calls out to first for the call on whether the batter went around — only the final decision is always with the TPM judge.) But Rep. Wilson, the keys to the Caucus await you! Just say the word!
