Social Security and Older Voters: 2006 Congressional Election

by William Arnone
January 30, 2007

"The president's Social Security privatization proposal reminded many blue-collar and middle-class voters why they had once voted Democratic. Such voters did not trust the free market enough to agree to cuts in their benefits."
-- E.J. Dionne, Jr. (The Washington Post, January 3, 2006)

The following is an analysis of the role of older voters in the 2006 election. The focus is on the positions taken on Social Security by the 29 Democratic candidates for the House of Representatives who won their campaigns in November as Congressional newcomers in seats that had been held by Republicans.

Executive Summary

The Democratic Party had recently been losing ground with older voters, a key constituent group that makes up a relatively high proportion of voters. Going into the 2006 elections, the Bush Administration's proposals for overhauling Social Security and its new Medicare Part D prescription drug program were expected to give Democrats two significant issues on which to focus in winning over older voters who had previously voted for Republican incumbents.

Democratic House candidates who contested seats held by Republicans ran on a general theme to "save and strengthen Social Security for future generations." Polls of likely older voters, as well as voters of all ages, supported the Democrats' focus on Social Security as a priority issue. In addition to the Democratic Party, national activist organizations, as well as many state and local advocacy groups, made Social Security a priority.

All of the 29 successful Democratic House candidates in the November elections took a "progressive" position on Social Security, in which they viewed Social Security's future financing problems as minor and opposed any major benefit reductions or significant changes in the program's social insurance structure. Few of the successful Democratic candidates, however, took positions on specific Social Security proposals that have been offered in the recent past.

According to post-election exit polls, the Democratic Party strategy succeeded in swinging significant percentages of older voters back from the Republican Party.

Now, as the Bush Administration and others have renewed calls for major reforms of "entitlement" programs, newly elected House Democrats may play a critical role in any attempts at a bipartisan approach to Social Security.

Background

The Democratic Party had recently been losing ground with older voters, a key constituent group that makes up a relatively high proportion of voters.

In the 2004 Presidential election, over 24% of the voters were age 60 and older. The Republican Presidential ticket in 2004 had a margin of 8 percentage points, which was a substantial increase from the Democratic Presidential ticket's margin of 4 percentage points in 2000. This represented a substantial swing to the Republican party of 12 percentage points. (The last Presidential election in which the Democratic ticket lost older voters to the Republican ticket had been in 1988 -- Dukakis-Bentsen vs. Bush-Quayle -- when the margin of loss was only 1 percentage point.)

Of older voters, 54% voted for Republican House candidates in 2004 compared with 51% in 2002 and 48% in 2000. In 1998, 55% of older voters voted Republican.

There is some evidence that older voters in 2004 were voting more on the basis of "moral values" (e.g., older Americans are more likely than younger to describe their outlook as "religious") and on other issues (e.g., national security) than on economic self-interest (e.g., Social Security, pensions, Medicare). This was especially evident in the voting behavior of older blue-collar men. Older women, however, seemed to be shifting noticeably toward Democratic candidates, because older women are more anti-war and tend to be more dependent on federal retirement benefits, like Social Security, than men.

Following the 2004 campaign, President Bush spent much of 2005 promoting his idea to allow younger workers to divert a portion of their Social Security payroll taxes to individual personal accounts. He proposed that the investment returns on such accounts would offset some of the Social Security benefits that younger workers would agree to forego at retirement. Eventually, President Bush acknowledged that carving out individual accounts alone would not improve Social Security's long-range financial condition. His Administration admitted that additional benefit reductions and perhaps tax changes would have to be made.

Republicans never attempted to incorporate the Administration's general plan into legislation. Without some Democrats' support, Republican Congressional leaders did not want to act alone on Social Security out of concern that they would risk losing their Congressional majorities over this issue.

During the debate on the Bush Administration's Social Security proposals, Democratic House members were careful not to put any alternative Social Security reform plan on the table, as long as the President remained committed to carving out voluntary defined contribution individual accounts from the program's defined benefit social insurance structure.

2006 Elections

Going into the 2006 elections, the Bush Administration's proposals for overhauling Social Security and its new Medicare Part D prescription drug program were expected to give Democrats two significant issues on which to focus in winning over older voters who had previously voted for Republican incumbents. Most Republican incumbents had either supported the Bush Administration's Social Security proposals or had refused to take positions on them. Most Republican incumbents had voted for the Medicare Part D legislation and seemed caught by surprise when the program's implementation caused serious problems for Medicare beneficiaries and their families.

As early as October 2005, the Democratic Campaign Coordinating Committee (DCCC) and its Chairman, Rahm Emanuel, identified "the collapse of Social Security privatization" as one of the "Republican failures" on which Democratic House candidates would challenge incumbents. (Source: "Meet the Press," October 2005)

Overall, Democratic House candidates who contested seats held by Republicans ran on a general theme to "save and strengthen Social Security for future generations." (Source: Rep. Nancy Pelosi, DCCC email, November 2005) A DCCC memo from Congressman Emanuel linked Social Security to a host of other domestic policy issues: "Whether a Democrat is talking about Social Security, Medicare, education, ethics, energy, jobs, or taxes, the message is the same: The Republicans have failed to make any progress, while Democrats represent change." (Source: DCCC, Recent Polling and Message Strategy for Democratic Candidates, November 2005)

Similarly, the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee (DSCC) focused on the Republicans' attempt to "privatize Social Security, threatening one of the most successful programs in our nation's history." (Source: Sen. Debbie Stabenow, DSCC email, November 2005)

Polls supported the Democrats' focus on Social Security as a priority issue. A September 2006 Democracy Corps poll of likely voters age 65 and older found that 59% thought that "things have gotten pretty seriously off on the wrong track" in the country, while 31% thought that "things in this country are going in the right direction." When asked "in deciding how to vote for Congress, which ONE of the following issues is MOST important to you?" and combining results for first and second choices, the poll found the following priority issues (Source: Democracy Corps, September 2006):

This poll also focused on Medicare. It asked respondents: "As you know, there is now a new prescription drug benefit under Medicare for seniors. How do you rate the program - mostly positively or mostly negatively?" The responses:

The poll also asked: "And when thinking about the new prescription drug benefit, which of the following should happen now?" The responses:

An October 2006 Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, jointly conducted by Democratic pollster Peter Hart and Republican pollster Bill McInturff, found that likely voters over age 50 for control of favored Democrats Congress by 20 percentage points. Older voters favored Democrats on the Social Security issue by more than 30 percentage points. (Source: Wall Street Journal/NBC News, October 2006)

A pre-election poll of likely voters over age 64 found in a generic match-up question that older respondents preferred the Democratic House candidates over Republican candidates, 51% to 43%. Although the margins were closer when candidates' actual names were used, the Democratic candidates on average still led by 5 points. A plurality of older respondents named Iraq as one of the top two factors in deciding their vote, the same as in the poll surveying Americans of all ages. Medicare and Social Security came in second on the list of older voters' priority issues, while those concerns only registered at sixth place in the general survey. (Source: Greenberg-Quinlan-Rosner poll for Democracy Corps, October 2006)

A Pew Research Center survey of 2,369 registered voters released the Sunday before Election Day showed that 48% of those age 65 and over were leaning towards voting for Democrats, compared with 42% for Republicans. Reflecting a broader trend, the number of older voters supporting Republicans rose slightly over figures from a Pew poll in September. (Source: Pew Research Center, November 2006)

According to one reporter: "Democrats counted on the over-60 vote to regularly return their party to power on Capitol Hill -- the party of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Social Security and Medicare, as Democrats were quick to remind retirees. But that changed in the 1990's, when that vote began tilting toward the Republicans. One reason for the change was demographics - the passing of the New Deal generation and its replacement with retirees whose political loyalties were formed in a more Republican era. But it also reflected Republican success in muting or neutralizing the longtime Democratic advantage as the more trustworthy party on Social Security and Medicare. The passage of the Medicare prescription drug law in 2003 was intended to be the crowning accomplishment of that strategy." (Source: Robin Toner, New York Times, February 19, 2006)

Among the tactics used by the DCCC to capitalize on the Democrats' apparent advantage on this issue were ads in targeted Republican districts across the country, including on Christian radio, "holding Republicans' feet to the fire for trying to privatize Social Security." (Source: DCCC memo, May 2006) This radio campaign represented a rare effort by the Democratic Party to appeal to the Republicans' conservative base. DCCC Chairman Emanuel was quoted as saying: "We are going to keep them back on their heels and make them compete for their own base." (Source: New York Times, May 17, 2006)

In addition to the Democratic Party, national activist organizations -- like the AARP, the AFL-CIO, the Alliance for Retired Americans, Americans United to Protect Social Security, the Campaign for America's Future, Democracy for America, Citizen Action, USAction, MoveOn, and Students for Social Security -- as well as many state and local advocacy groups made Social Security a priority. Several organizations developed a Congressional pledge not to privatize any part of the program or cut benefits with which it confronted Republican incumbents, many of whom were considered "moderates" within their party. Many Democratic challengers signed the pledge in contrast with their Republican opponents' refusal to do so.

The Social Security issue also resonated with other segments of the voting population. Americans of all ages stated that they preferred Democrats to Republicans on this issue by 22 percentage points -- a greater margin than Democrats had enjoyed in the recent past. (Source: Wall Street Journal, November 10, 2005) When asked if they "approve, disapprove or have mixed feelings about the way George W. Bush is handling" the Social Security issue, 60% said they disapproved, 35% approved, and 2% expressed mixed feelings. (Source: Associated Press-IPSOS poll, January 2006)

In June 2006, a Gallup poll found that 76% of Americans of all ages believed that Social Security was an ''extremely important'' issue for Congress and 55% of respondents trusted Democrats to handle the issue, as opposed to 28% who trusted Republicans. (Source: The Gallup Organization, June 2006)

On behalf of the non-partisan Center for Rural Strategies, Democratic pollster Anna Greenberg and Republican consultant Bill Greener surveyed 500 registered voters in 41 competitive rural districts, including Pennsylvania's 10th Congressional District and parts of Indiana's 8th. The Iraq war was named as the first or second priority by 38% of respondents, followed by the economy (25%). Medicare and Social Security were seen as important as terrorism and national security (21%). (Source: National Journal, October 27, 2006)

A poll of Black voters of all ages found that health care (49%) and Social Security (42%) topped their list of the most important issues. (Source: Associated Press/IPSOS/AOL poll, November 2006)

Some Republican House candidates ran ads that claimed that their Democratic opponents would "cut benefits for seniors" and "raise Social Security taxes" on workers. These Democratic candidates had supported the AARP's approach to addressing Social Security's enormous deficit by making "modest adjustments in future benefits" and getting "additional contributions from higher-income workers." John Rother, AARP's Director of Legislation and Public Policy, called the Republican ad campaign a "distortion" of the candidates' positions and said that the spots misused a survey AARP had asked candidates to complete.

Some Republican House candidates also attempted to tie Social Security to the issue of illegal immigration, by alleging that their Democratic opponents supported Social Security benefits for undocumented workers.

Did the Democratic strategy succeed?

According to exit polls conducted by CNN, voters over age 60 represented 27% of the total voters in the 2006 Congressional elections. This was an increase of almost 3 percentage points over 2004. Of older voters, 49% voted for Republican House candidates and 48% voted for Democratic House candidates. This represented a swing of 7 percentage points from the Republicans to the Democrats since the 2004 elections.

Republicans did better, however, among voters age 65 and older, who comprised 16% of the total voters in 2006. Republicans won 53% of their votes, compared to 45% who voted Democratic, for a margin of 8 percentage points.

According to the New York Times exit poll, however, Democrats won the vote of those 60 and older by 52%-48%. This was an increase of 12 percentage points over 2004. This was slightly less than the Democratic margin for all age groups.

Breaking the 2006 results down further, Republicans won one segment of older voters, Whites, by 53%-47%. Democrats and Republicans split the vote of older men, 50%-50%. Women age 60 and older voted for Democrats by 53%-47%. Older African-Americans favored Democrats by 90%-10%. In contrast with older voters as a group, voters under age 30 favored Democrats by 61%-39%.

Successful Democratic House Candidates

In a previous analysis of the 29 Democratic candidates who captured Republican House seats in November, the following characterization of their positions on Social Security was used.

A "centrist" position claimed that Social Security had serious financial problems and opened the door to significant changes in Social Security. A "progressive" position viewed Social Security's future financing problems as minor and opposed any major benefit reductions or significant changes in the program's social insurance structure.

The following provides more details on each candidate's Social Security positions, based primarily on the candidate's own campaign Website, as well as news reports on his or her campaigns.

Harry Mitchell (Arizona, 5th CD)

Although a "centrist" on other key issues, Mitchell took a "progressive" position on Social Security. He won with 50% of the vote against 12-year incumbent J.D. Hayworth.

This district, which includes Tempe and Scottsdale, is almost entirely urban. Social Security recipients make up nearly 15% of this district's voting age population. The Republican Presidential ticket carried this district by a margin of 9 percentage points in 2004 and 11 percentage points in 2000. Redistricting in 2002 was thought to have made this district safely Republican.

In Congress, Hayworth had championed unsuccessful efforts to block Social Security payments to immigrants who had not met eligibility requirements.

In October 2006, Hayworth ran ads claiming that Mitchell "will cut benefits for seniors" due to his response to an AARP questionnaire.

Mitchell's specific Social Security positions were:

Gabrielle Giffords (Arizona, 8th CD)

Giffords took "progressive" positions on most key issues, including Social Security. She won with 54% of the vote against Randy Graf for an open seat held by 12-year incumbent Jim Kolbe.

This district, which includes Tucson and is predominantly urban, has a very high proportion of older voters. Social Security recipients make up over 25% of this district's voting age population. The Republican Presidential ticket carried this district by a margin of 7 percentage points in 2004 and 4 percentage points in 2000.

In Congress, Kolbe had been a strong advocate of individual Social Security investment accounts. In 2005, he co-sponsored a bill to establish such accounts.

Giffords ran a campaign ad on "protecting Social Security."

A Tucson Weekly poll in October 2006 showed that 53% of voters had more trust in Giffords on Social Security.

Giffords's specific Social Security positions were:

Jerry McNerney (California, 11th CD)

McNerney took "progressive" positions on all key issues, including Social Security. He won with 53% of the vote against 14-year incumbent Richard Pombo.

This district, which is predominantly urban and directly East of San Francisco, has a high proportion of older voters. Social Security recipients make up over 18% of the district's voting age population. The Republican Presidential ticket carried this district by a margin of 9 percentage points in 2004 and 8 percentage points in 2000.

McNerney issued a campaign brochure, "Count on Your Social Security Benefits? Count on Jerry McNerney to Protect It."

McNerney's specific Social Security positions were:

Ed Perlmutter (Colorado, 7th CD)

Perlmutter took "progressive" positions on all key issues, including Social Security. He won with 55% of the vote against Rick O'Donnell for an open seat held by Bob Beauprez, a 4-year incumbent. Beauprez had been a target of Social Security advocacy groups.

This predominantly suburban district around Denver, which was newly created for the 2002 election, has a high proportion of older voters. Social Security recipients make up nearly 17% of this district's voting age population. The Democratic Presidential ticket carried this district by a margin of 3 percentage points in 2004 and 1 percentage point in 2000. In the 2002 House election, this was the most closely divided district in the nation.

During the campaign, O'Donnell acknowledged that he had written an essay 11 years ago calling for the abolition of Social Security. O'Donnell said that he had since changed his position and wanted voters to know that he now favored "fixing Social Security, not abandoning it." His essay, "For Freedom's Sake, Eliminate Social Security," was published in February 1995, when he was editing American Civilization, a publication of Newt Gingrich's Progress and Freedom Foundation.

"As we bury the rest of the welfare state in preparation for the 21st century, it is time to slay the largest government 'entitlement' program of all, Social Security," O'Donnell had written. "There is an even more important moral question raised by the government's role as chief provider in old age," the essay continued. "It sends the un-American message that it is not your responsibility to take care of yourself."

In August 2006, Perlmutter was chosen to deliver the Democratic Party's radio address on Social Security.

In September, O'Donnell ran ads claiming that Perlmutter "will cut benefits for seniors" due to his response to an AARP questionnaire.

Perlmutter's specific Social Security positions were:

Chris Murphy (Connecticut, 5th CD)

Murphy took "progressive"positions on most key issues, including Social Security. He won with 56% of the vote against 24-year incumbent Nancy Johnson. Johnson was a target of Social Security advocacy groups.

This predominantly urban district, which covers much of the Western side of the state, has a very high proportion of older voters. Social Security recipients make up nearly 22% of this district's voting age population. The Democratic Presidential ticket carried this district by a margin of less than 1 percentage point in 2004 and 9 percentage points in 2000.

Johnson was the third-ranking member of the House Ways and Means Committee. In early 2005, she said that Social Security changes were urgently needed and supported personal retirement accounts.

In September 2006, Murphy was chosen to deliver the Democratic Party's radio address on Medicare.

Murphy's specific Social Security positions were:

Tim Mahoney (Florida, 16th CD)

Although a "centrist" on most other key issues, Mahoney took a "progressive" position on Social Security. He won with 50% of the vote against Joe Negron for an open seat held by Mark Foley, a 12-year incumbent. Foley had been a target of Social Security advocacy groups.

This predominantly urban district, which stretches from the Atlantic Ocean almost to the Gulf of Mexico, has an extremely high proportion of older voters. Social Security recipients make up nearly 34% of this district's voting age population. The Republican Presidential ticket carried this district by a margin of 8 percentage points in 2004 and 6 percentage points in 2000.

In October 2006, the National Republican Campaign Committee ran ads claiming that Mahoney "will cut benefits for seniors" due to his response to an AARP questionnaire.

Mahoney's specific Social Security positions were:

Ron Klein (Florida, 22nd CD)

Although a "centrist" on some other key issues, Klein took a "progressive" position on Social Security. He won with 51% of the vote against 26-year incumbent Clay Shaw. Shaw was a target of Social Security advocacy groups.

This urban district, which includes much of Palm Beach and Broward counties, has a very high proportion of older voters. Social Security recipients make up over 24% of this district's voting age population. The Democratic Presidential ticket carried this district by a margin of 4 percentage points in 2004 and 4 percentage points in 2000.

Shaw had been Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee's Social Security Subcommittee, a post he had held since 1998, when this district had the nation's highest percentage of residents over age 65. He said he wanted to reform Social Security and preserve it for boomer retirements. In 2000, Shaw led the passage of legislation that eliminated the earnings limit for Social Security recipients over the normal retirement age.

In 2004, Shaw proposed giving workers the option of establishing individual Social Security accounts over and above current benefits and financed by additional payroll tax contributions of 2-3%. Currently scheduled Social Security benefits would continue to be guaranteed under his proposal. He said that using part of the current Social Security payroll tax to fund personal accounts was politically unfeasible.

Although term limits required that Shaw relinquish the chairmanship of the Social Security Subcommittee, he remained a member of it.

Klein repeatedly criticized the Bush Administration's plan to privatize Social Security and linked Shaw to that plan. Shaw's campaign released a statement in August 2006 that said he "strongly opposes any effort to privatize Social Security and has strongly disagreed with the President on his approach to save Social Security.''

In May 2006, Klein was chosen to deliver the Democratic Party's radio address on Medicare and Social Security.

Klein's specific Social Security positions were:

Joe Donnelly (Indiana, 2nd CD)

Although a "centrist" on all other key issues, Donnelly took a "progressive" position on Social Security. He won with 54% of the vote against 4-year incumbent Chris Chocola. Chocola was a target of Social Security advocacy groups.

This largely urban district, which is centered in South Bend and has historically been part of the Republican heartland, has a very high proportion of older voters. Social Security recipients make up nearly 23% of this district's voting age population. The Republican Presidential ticket carried this district by a margin of 13 percentage points in 2004 and 9 percentage points in 2000.

During his first campaign for Congress in 2000, Chocola said "eventually I'd like to see the entire (Social Security) system privatized." In 2002, he said he would "support our President in making sure that 20-year-olds find a way to get Social Security."

In September 2006, Donnelly ran an ad that focused on Social Security and Medicare. He also highlighted Social Security in his basic campaign brochure.

Donnelly's specific Social Security positions were:

Brad Ellsworth (Indiana, 8th CD)

Although a "centrist" on all other key issues, Ellsworth took a "progressive" position on Social Security. He won with 61% of the vote against 12-year incumbent John Hostettler. Hostettler was a target of Social Security advocacy groups.

This mixed urban and rural district, which covers most of Southwest and West central Indiana, including Evansville and Terre Haute, has a very high proportion of older voters. Social Security recipients make up over 24% of this district's voting age population. The Republican Presidential ticket carried this district by a margin of 24 percentage points in 2004 and 14 percentage points in 2000.

In May 2006, the DCCC ran radio ads attacking Hostettler for his support of the Bush Administration's "private accounts" plan.

Ellsworth's specific Social Security positions were:

Although a "centrist" on most other key issues, Hill took a "progressive" position on Social Security. He won with 50% of the vote against 2-year incumbent Michael Sodrel. Sodrel was a target of Social Security advocacy groups.

This mixed urban and rural district, which covers the Southeastern corner of Indiana and most of the state's Ohio River counties, has a very high proportion of older voters. Social Security recipients make up 21% of this district's voting age population. It includes Democratic-leaning Bloomington and the Louisville metropolitan area, as well as the suburbs of Cincinnati, which have been trending Republican. The Republican Presidential ticket carried this district by a margin of 19 percentage points in 2004 and 14 percentage points in 2000.

In May and September 2006, the DCCC ran radio ads attacking Sodrel on Social Security privatization. (Source: DCCC memo, September 2006)

Hill's specific Social Security positions were:

Bruce Braley (Iowa, 1st CD)

Braley took "progressive"positions on most key issues, including Social Security. He won with 55% of the vote against Mike Whalen for an open seat held by Jim Nussle, a 16-year incumbent. Nussle had been a target of Social Security advocacy groups. Nussle was also Chairman of the House Budget Committee.

This predominantly urban district of Northeast Iowa has a very high proportion of older voters. Social Security recipients make up over 23% of this district's voting age population. The Democratic Presidential ticket carried this district by a margin of 7 percentage points in 2004 and 7 percentage points in 2000.

In Nussle's 2002 re-election campaign, he had said that he was against privatization of Social Security, but favored adding options for savings and investment for younger workers.

Braley launched an early campaign against Whalen as an avid Republican supporter of Social Security privatization. (Source: DCCC memo, June 2006) The DCCC ran ads attacking Whalen on Social Security, noting that "Whalen was on the board of a right-wing think tank behind Social Security privatization."

In July 2006, Braley was chosen to deliver the Democratic Party's radio address on Social Security.

Braley's specific Social Security positions were:

David Loebsack (Iowa, 2nd CD)

Loebsack took "progressive"positions on most key issues, including Social Security. He won with 51% of the vote against 30-year incumbent Jim Leach. Leach was a target of Social Security advocacy groups.

This predominantly urban district, which covers Eastern Iowa and includes Des Moines and Cedar Rapids, has a very high proportion of older voters. Social Security recipients make up nearly 22% of this district's voting age population. It had historically been Iowa's most Democratic Congressional district. The Democratic Presidential ticket carried this district by a margin of 11 percentage points in 2004 and 10 percentage points in 2000.

Loebsack's specific Social Security positions were:

Nancy Boyda (Kansas, 2nd CD)

Boyda took "progressive"positions on most key issues, including Social Security. She won with 51% of the vote against 10-year incumbent Jim Ryun.

This largely urban district, which covers Eastern Kansas and includes Topeka, has a very high proportion of older voters. Social Security recipients make up 21% of this district's voting age population. The Republican Presidential ticket carried this district by a margin of 20 percentage points in 2004 and 13 percentage points in 2000.

Boyda's specific Social Security positions were:

John Yarmuth (Kentucky, 3rd CD)

Yarmuth took "progressive" positions on all key issues, including Social Security. He won with 51% of the vote against 10-year incumbent Anne Northrup. Northrup was a target of Social Security advocacy groups.

This urban and suburban district, which includes Louisville, has a very high proportion of older voters. Social Security recipients make up nearly 21% of this district's voting age population. The Democratic Presidential ticket carried this district by a margin of 2 percentage points in 2004 and 2 percentage points in 2000.

Yarmuth's specific Social Security positions were:

Tim Walz (Minnesota, 1st CD)

Although a "centrist" on most other key issues, Walz took a "progressive" position on Social Security. He won with 53% of the vote against 12-year incumbent Gil Gutknecht. Gutknecht was a target of Social Security advocacy groups.

This mixed urban and rural district, which covers Southern Minnesota and includes Rochester, has a very high proportion of older voters. Social Security recipients make up nearly 25% of this district's voting age population. The Republican Presidential ticket carried this district by a margin of 4 percentage points in 2004 and 4 percentage points in 2000.

Walz's specific Social Security positions were:

Carol Shea-Porter (New Hampshire, 1st CD)

Shea-Porter took "progressive"positions on most key issues, including Social Security. She won with 52% of the vote against 4-year incumbent Jeb Bradley. Bradley was a target of Social Security advocacy groups.

This predominantly urban district, which covers the Southeast and South central parts of New Hampshire and includes Manchester, has a very high proportion of older voters. Social Security recipients make up 20% of this district's voting age population. The Republican Presidential ticket carried this district by a margin of 3 percentage points in 2004 and 3 percentage points in 2000.

In his 2002 campaign, Bradley had said that individual investment accounts in Social Security should be discussed, but then announced his opposition to privatization.

Shea-Porter's specific Social Security positions were:

Paul Hodes (New Hampshire, 2nd CD)

Hodes took "progressive" positions on all key issues, including Social Security. He won with 53% of the vote against 12-year incumbent Charles Bass.

This mixed urban and rural district, which includes Concord, has a very high proportion of older voters. Social Security recipients make up over 22% of this district's voting age population. The Democratic Presidential ticket carried this district by a margin of 5 percentage points in 2004 and 1 percentage point in 2000.

Hodes's specific Social Security positions were:

John Hall (New York, 19th CD)

Hall took "progressive" positions on all key issues, including Social Security. He won with 51% of the vote against 12-year incumbent Sue Kelly. Kelly was a target of Social Security advocacy groups.

This predominantly urban and suburban district, which covers much of New York's lower Hudson River Valley, has a very high proportion of older voters. Social Security recipients make up over 20% of this district's voting age population. The Republican Presidential ticket carried this district by a margin of 9 percentage points in 2004 and 2 percentage points in 2000.

In October 2006, Hall held a press conference devoted to Social Security.

Hall's specific Social Security positions were:

Kirsten Gillibrand (New York, 20th CD)

Gillibrand took "progressive" positions on most key issues, including Social Security. She won with 53% of the vote against 8-year incumbent John Sweeney. Sweeney was a target of Social Security advocacy groups.

This predominantly rural district, which includes Albany, has a very high proportion of older voters. Social Security recipients make up nearly 25% of this district's voting age population. The Republican Presidential ticket carried this district by a margin of 8 percentage points in 2004 and 7 percentage points in 2000.

In September 2006, Gillibrand held a rally opposing Social Security privatization and signed a Citizen Action Social Security pledge.

Gillibrand's specific Social Security positions were:

Arcuri took "progressive" positions on all key issues, including Social Security. He won with 54% of the vote against Raymond Meier for an open seat held by Sherwood Boehlert, a 24-year incumbent. Boehlert had been a target of Social Security advocacy groups.

This mixed urban and suburban district, which covers the Mohawk River Valley of central New York and includes Utica and Cooperstown, has a very high proportion of older voters. Social Security recipients make up over 24% of this district's voting age population. The Republican Presidential ticket carried this district by a margin of 6 percentage points in 2004 and 1 percentage point in 2000.

In October 2006, Arcuri signed the Citizen Action Social Security pledge at a senior citizen center.

Arcuri's specific Social Security positions were:

Heath Shuler (North Carolina, 11th CD)

Although a "centrist" on some other key issues, Shuler took a "progressive" position on Social Security. He won with 54% of the vote against 16-year incumbent Charles Taylor. Taylor was a target of Social Security advocacy groups.

This largely rural district, which covers Western North Carolina and includes Asheville, has a very high proportion of older voters. Social Security recipients make up over 29% of this district's voting age population. The Republican Presidential ticket carried this district by a margin of 14 percentage points in 2004 and 18 percentage points in 2000.

Shuler's specific Social Security positions were:

Zachary Space (Ohio, 18th CD)

Space took "progressive"positions on most key issues, including Social Security. He won with 62% of the vote against Joy Padgett for an open seat held by Bob Ney, a 12-year incumbent.

This largely rural district, which covers Eastern Ohio, has a very high proportion of older voters. Social Security recipients make up over 24% of this district's voting age population. The Republican Presidential ticket carried this district by a margin of 14 percentage points in 2004 and 14 percentage points in 2000.

In June 2006, Space held a Social Security roundtable.

Space's specific Social Security positions were:

Jason Altmire (Pennsylvania, 4th CD)

Although a "centrist" on some other key issues, Altmire took a "progressive" position on Social Security. He won with 52% of the vote against 6-year incumbent Melissa Hart.

This predominantly urban district, which covers Western Pennsylvania and includes much of suburban Pittsburgh, has a very high proportion of older voters. Social Security recipients make up over 26% of this district's voting age population. The Republican Presidential ticket carried this district by a margin of 9 percentage points in 2004 and 6 percentage points in 2000.

Hart was a member of the House Ways and Means Committee and she had promised to make strengthening Social Security a priority.

Altmire's specific Social Security positions were:

Joseph Sestak, Jr. (Pennsylvania, 7th CD)

Sestak took "progressive" positions on all key issues, including Social Security. He won with 56% of the vote against 20-year incumbent Curt Weldon.

This urban and suburban district has a very high proportion of older voters. Social Security recipients make up over 22% of this district's voting age population. The Democratic Presidential ticket carried this district by a margin of 6 percentage points in 2004 and 4 percentage points in 2000.

In August 2006, Sestak issued a press release on Social Security's 71st anniversary.

Sestak's specific Social Security positions were:

Patrick Murphy (Pennsylvania, 8th CD)

Murphy took "progressive" positions on most key issues, including Social Security. He won with 50% of the vote against 2-year incumbent Michael Fitzpatrick. Fitzpatrick was a target of Social Security advocacy groups.

This predominantly urban and suburban district, which includes parts of Northeast Philadelphia, has a very high proportion of older voters. Social Security recipients make up 21% of this district's voting age population. The Democratic Presidential ticket carried this district by a margin of 3 percentage points in 2004 and 5 percentage points in 2000.

In October 2006, Murphy held a public event with the president of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare and he took a pledge never to privatize Social Security.

Murphy's specific Social Security positions were:

Chris Carney (Pennsylvania, 10th CD)

Although a "centrist" on most other key issues, Carney took a "progressive" position on Social Security. He won with 53% of the vote against 8-year incumbent Donald Sherwood. Sherwood was a target of Social Security advocacy groups.

This largely rural district, which covers the Northeast corner of Pennsylvania, has a very high proportion of older voters. Social Security recipients make up over 26% of this district's voting age population. The Republican Presidential ticket carried this district by a margin of 20 percentage points in 2004 and 16 percentage points in 2000.

In October 2006, the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee ran ads claiming that Carney "will cut benefits for seniors" due to his response to an AARP questionnaire.

Carney's specific Social Security positions were:

Nick Lampson (Texas, 22nd CD)

Although a "centrist" on most other key issues, Lampson took a "progressive" position on Social Security. He won with 52% of the vote against Shelly Sekula-Gibbs for an open seat held by Tom DeLay, a 22-year incumbent, who had been House Majority Leader since 2003.

This predominantly urban district includes Sugar Land. Social Security recipients make up 13% of this district's voting age population. The Republican Presidential ticket carried this district by a margin of 28 percentage points in 2004 and 34 percentage points in 2000.

Lampson's specific Social Security positions were:

Steve Kagen (Wisconsin, 8th CD)

Kagen took "progressive" positions on most key issues, including Social Security. He won with 51% of the vote against John Gard for an open seat held by Mark Green, an 8-year incumbent. Green had been a target of Social Security advocacy groups.

This largely urban district, which includes Green Bay, has a very high proportion of older voters. Social Security recipients make up nearly 23% of this district's voting age population. The Republican Presidential ticket carried this district by a margin of 11 percentage points in 2004 and 9 percentage points in 2000.

Kagen's specific Social Security positions were:

Conclusion

In October 2006, President Bush said that he planned to revive his proposals to "restructure" Social Security programs right after the November Congressional elections. Expressing confidence that he would have a Republican majority to work with in both houses of Congress, he said that he intended to make Social Security ''modernization'' a top priority during his last two years in office. ''After these elections come and go, we're going to work with the leaders, and to say, 'we're all responsible for getting something done,' '' President Bush said. ''My hope is, in the last two years of this administration, we can set aside needless politics and focus on what's right for the United States of America and solve these entitlement programs once and for all.'' (Source: Bureau of National Affairs, October 2006)

President Bush reiterated his desire to work with Congress to "reform entitlement programs" like Social Security and Medicare in comments he made to the press at a post-election White House event with Republican legislative leaders in January 2007.

All of the 29 successful Democratic House candidates in Congressional districts that had been Republican took "progressive" positions on Social Security. In view of the closeness of 22 of these successful races (i.e., where the Democratic candidate won with less than 55% of the vote) and the high proportions of older voters in most of these Congressional Districts (i.e., in 24 of these districts Social Security recipients comprised at least 20% of the voting-age population), the use of the Social Security issue to win older voters appears to have been a significant factor in these victories.

This will have an impact on any attempts to deal with Social Security in the 110th Congress. As one reporter has noted in connection with Social Security: "Except for the Iraq war, perhaps no other issue so tests whether Democrats' capture of Capitol Hill in this month's midterm elections will cause Mr. Bush to alter what has been a largely partisan and uncompromising governing style." (Source: Jackie Calmes, The Wall Street Journal, November 22, 2006)

Few of the successful Democratic candidates, however, took positions on specific Social Security proposals that have been offered in the recent past.

For example, only five (Mitchell, C. Murphy, Hall, Arcuri, Shuler) of the 29 stated their opposition to any increase in the normal retirement age for receiving full Social Security benefits, while one appeared to be open to further adjustments in this area (Giffords).

Nine stated their support for some form of increase in payroll taxes to finance Social Security (Giffords, Loebsack, Walz, Shea-Porter, Hall, Gillibrand, Altmire, Carney, Kagen), while five opposed tax increases (Mitchell, Braley, Shuler, Sestak, P. Murphy). Benefit cuts were explicitly opposed by seven (Mitchell, Mahoney, Klein, Loebsack, Gillibrand, Arcuri, Shuler).

Twelve of the Democratic candidates emphasized protecting the Social Security Trust Fund against its use for other federal spending purposes, often referred to as "raiding" (Mitchell, Giffords, McNerney, Perlmutter, Mahoney, Klein, Donnelly, Braley, Boyda, Gillibrand, Shuler, P. Murphy).

Seven of the Democratic candidates called for a bipartisan commission or bipartisan approach to deal with Social Security (Giffords, Perlmutter, Mahoney, Klein, Altmire, Sestak, Carney). Should a bipartisan effort to consider Social Security proposals emerge in the 110th Congress, the shortage of specific positions taken by the newly elected Democratic House members -- beyond their opposition to private individual accounts -- may increase the likelihood that such an effort achieves some agreement.

~~~~~~~~

William Arnone
william.arnone@ey.com
January 2007

Copyright ©2007 WeDemocrats.org
Reproduction of material from any We! the People pages without written permission is strictly prohibited.

Web design by Alllie