Most NM congressional candidates say no to raising social security age

House Republican Minority Leader John Boehner, said earlier this summer that if the Republicans regain control of the House this year, among the initiatives they would likely consider would be raising the age of social security retirement to 70.

The Independent asked the six candidates for New Mexico’s three congressional seats whether or not they thought the age should be pushed to 70, and what we found was a decided reluctance to endorse the idea.

Only Tom Mullins, the Republican challenger in New Mexico’s northern Congressional District 3 said he believed raising the retirement age is inevitable. Mullins is running against Congressman Ben Ray Lujan, who didn’t directly answer the question, instead affirming that the social security program needed to be protected.

In the 1st Congressional District, which covers the state’s metropolitan center, Congressman Martin Heinrich said he didn’t support “transferring the country’s financial burdens to our senior citizens” and is opposed to privatizing the system or raising the retirement age. Republican challenger Jon Barela simply said he didn’t think the age should be raised.

In the south, Congressman Harry Teague replied that to entertain the idea of raising the age was “dangerous.” His Republican challenger, Steve Pearce, e-mailed his reply (underlined and in bold), saying he doesn’t think the retirement age should be raised. Pearce addressed the topic in the context of the current recession, but he has an extensive on-the-record history from past campaigns in which he is supportive of partial privatization of social security for workers who are currently under 50.

Here are is question we asked: Do you support raising the social security retirement age to 70? Why or why not?

Congressional District 1

Congressman Martin Heinrich, Democrat:

I do not support the transfer of our country’s financial burdens to our senior citizens and I am against privatizing social security.  If we raise the social security retirement age to 70, we are breaking our promise to millions of American workers who paid into this program their entire lives. After a lifetime of hard work, our seniors deserve the economic security and stability they were guaranteed. I am committed to strengthening Social Security for future generations, but raising the retirement age is not the solution because it is at the expense of the well being of our seniors.

Jon Barela, Republican challenger:

Jon does not believe the retirement age for social security should be raised and feels we cannot compromise when it comes to honoring our commitment to seniors.

Congressional District 2

Congressman Harry Teague, Democrat:

Hundreds of thousands of hardworking New Mexicans, who faithfully paid in to Social Security throughout their lives, now depend on the program to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table. And as New Mexican families struggle to balance their budgets in these tough economic times, it is dangerous, now more so than ever, to entertain new ideas to raise the social security retirement age to 70.

Steve Pearce, Republican Challenger:

No the retirement age should not be raised. The government breaks too many deals and we must protect and preserve Social Security for those who depend upon it.  The actuarial problems with social security begin to disappear as the economy grows at 3 1/2 percent so economic growth and job creation are the most important thing we can do to help the social security problem. At 10% unemployment, the retirement age cannot be raised high enough to cure the problem.

Congressional District 3

Congressman Ben Ray Lujan, Democrat:

It is important that we protect social security for seniors to ensure that people are taken care of after they’re unable to work. As issues surrounding social security arise, we must closely review them so that we can we can make smart decisions about protecting this vital program for today’s beneficiaries and for future generations.

Tom Mullins, Republican Challenger:

Social Security expenditures are currently greater than the tax revenue being collected from workers.  This is not a sustainable situation.  We must honor the commitments and promises made to those aged 50 years and older, but younger workers will undoubtedly see fewer benefits and have their eligibility age raised. Social Security was originally intended to pay disability benefits to workers and surviving spouses, although it has now become the sole financial income source for many retirees.  As life expectancies have increased, the commitments to those eligible have increased.  I believe that if you contribute your taxes into a retirement fund, that you should be able to receive those funds and pass them along to your heirs.  I encourage younger workers to fully invest in private retirement plans, depend less upon politician promises, and to take greater individual responsibility for their retirement.