I am writing today to announce the closure of the New Mexico Independent. After three and a half years of operation in New Mexico, the board of the American Independent News Network, has decided to shift publication of its news…
While environmental activists played their part yesterday during demonstrations at the capitol building, going so far as to dress up as solar panels and to sing the tune of “You Are My Sunshine,” their counterparts, the anti-cap-and-trade contingency who has…
Roughly one quarter of University of New Mexico students are unimpressed with the state’s flagship public school, according to a survey that questioned college students about their higher education experiences.
On Tuesday Steve Pearce’s congressional campaign told Joe Monahan that saying Pearce once supported privatizing Social Security “is factually untrue.”
“Pearce…strongly believes that we must fulfill our promises to our seniors and make it solvent for current and future generations. Fixes do not include privatization,” the campaign told Monahan.
But Democrats fired back with news stories from 2005 and 2007 that complicate that denial.
Republicans have hammered New Mexico Democratic Congressman Harry Teague for his vote on the American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act in recent months, especially since former Congressman Steve Pearce announced that he would run against Teague in November. With his move, it appears Democrats seem to have settled on their own wedge issue: Pearce’s support for a watered down version of George W. Bush’s Social Security privatization plans.
In an Albuquerque Journal article from February 6, 2005, Pearce appears to support some form of Social Security privatization. As accessed via Lexis earlier today:
Pearce, who represents the 2nd Congressional District, said he agrees with the president’s call to partially privatize the system but not as drastically as has been proposed.
He suggested a plan that would allow workers to divert into a private account a portion of their 6.2 percent Social Security tax — but only on the first $50,000 of income. Social Security tax drawn from income between $50,001 and $90,000, at which point Social Security taxes are no longer imposed, would still go to the trust fund under Pearce’s proposal.
The entire 6.2 percent of wages currently paid by employers would still be paid into the Social Security trust fund, as well, Pearce said. He suggested starting personal private accounts on a small scale, watching the results for a set period of time, and then re-evaluating the idea.
“I don’t see how something complex will get through,” Pearce said. “It needs to be fairly simple.”
An article in the Clovis News-Journal from November 27, 2007 also captured Pearce’s support for privatizing Social Security:
Following up on a question about Medicare, Pearce said he had supported President Bush’s plan to turn over a portion of Americans’ Social Security so they could invest it themselves. He said the proposal was met with skepticism by Washington and the public.
“It is our responsibility to deal with these problems and not just keep sweeping them along,” Pearce said.
“Why can’t former Congressman Pearce just be straight with southern New Mexicans about his support of privatizing Social Security? After all, voters deserve much better than this Steve Pearce ‘he was for it before he was against it’ double talk,” said Andy Stone, Western Regional Press Secretary for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “With Pearce talking out of both sides of his mouth about his support for this risky privatization scheme it begs the question: What else is Pearce willing to say to get elected?”
