New Boockvar Ad Hits Hard on Entitlements (Watch Video)

Congressional challenger Kathy Boockvar is taking a page from the book of national Democrats. Her latest television ad slams Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick (R-Bucks) over positions that she says threaten Social Security and Medicare.

The ad features an elderly couple at a kitchen table speaking sternly to the camera.

“We thought we knew who Mike Fitzpatrick was,” says an older man, named Bill.

“When he first ran for Congress he said he’d protect Social Security,” says his wife, Jean.

“But then he supported privatizing it,” Bill adds.

“And now Fitzpatrick supports a plan that means huge cuts to Medicare,” Jean says.

The allegations stem primarily from Fitzpatrick’s votes in favor of two budgets authored by vice presidential nominee Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), which would make Medicare more like a voucher system.

Supporters say reforms are necessary to protect the program from bankruptcy, and wouldn’t affect anyone currently 55 or older. Critics contend that the plan would increase out of pocket expenses for beneficiaries and result in diminished coverage.

“Fitzpatrick twice voted for a budget that the Wall Street Journal said would essentially end Medicare,” says an announce over an image of Fitzpatrick and B roll of Bill and Jean looking dismayed.

It’s Boockvar’s second television commercial of the campaign and part of her continued push on the Medicare issue.

Her first TV spot, which ran for the past two weeks, was positive and introductory. Taking this newly announced ad into consideration, said a spokesman, Boockvar’s campaign has laid out about $300,000 on TV so far in September alone.

“This has to be a new record,” said Fitzpatrick Campaign Manager Faith Bender. “Having only spent two weeks talking about herself, Boockvar must have learned pretty quickly that our neighbors realize she’s out-of-touch with our community.”

On the issue of Social Security, Bender said the Boockvar ad’s accusation was flatly false.

“Claiming Mike Fitzpatrick supported social security privatization is an outright lie,” said Bender. “I challenge their campaign to find any statement from Mike Fitzpatrick doing anything other than fixing and preserving social security.”

“Without any issues to run on, how much lower can the Boockvar campaign go?”

In 2005, Fitzpatrick said he supported the idea, proposed by George W. Bush, of Social Security that incorporated individual savings accounts. According to media accounts, he held out on final judgment in the absence of more details – but did insist that such a plan was different from privatization. Democrats and other critics disagreed, saying that they were the same. The legislative effort fizzled soon after.

Fitzpatrick’s new web video: Women’s Health

Meanwhile, Fitzpatrick’s campaign released a video of its own: a two minute web ad which seeks to rebut criticism that the Congressman has taken the wrong side in the “war on women.”

Mike Fitzpatrick has done so much for women, they couldn't fit it into 30 seconds if they tried!

The video has the feel of an extended cut, possibly the makings of a future TV ad depending on how the campaign goes. It features testimonials from two women, including Dr. Beth DuPree, a breast cancer specialist, who say that Fitzpatrick is an advocate for them in Washington.

“Mike Fitzpatrick is one of the only people inside the Beltway that’s going to understand what we really need to do for women’s health care,” says DuPree.

Two women and a male announcer tick off Fitzpatrick’s pro-women acumen (has a wife and three daughters, wrote a bill that funded rape prevention efforts, represented abuse victims pro bono, etc).

Boockvar’s campaign didn’t hesitate to note two of Fitzpatrick’s more conservative votes on women’s issues.

“This is yet another of Congressman Fitzpatrick’s flagrant attempts to distract from his actual voting record,” Boockvar Campaign Manager Jon Blair said of the video. “This is a record that includes voting in 2011 to defund Planned Parenthood’s comprehensive healthcare services for women, as well as co-sponsoring a bill along with Todd Akin to redefine rape that same year.”

Boockvar accused Fitzpatrick of seeking to “turn back the clock on women’s rights” in a web video earlier this summer. And the Bucks County chapter of San Francisco-based CREDO Super PAC recently held a protest of Fitzpatrick via a candlelight vigil at his Langhorne office.

Here’s the full Fitzpatrick video:

21 Responses

  1. Susan,
    So instead of trying to fix social security which your generation has raided consistantly since the 1960’s, you want to suck up the last resources for yourself in a greedy manner. As i posted earlier, you would not have been affected by the Bush Plan at all because you were over 55 at the time it was discussed. You remember when the $250 million uber rich candidate John Kerry who married into money had run for president…
    I also want to see the evidence that Fitzpatrick support specifically forcing privatization of the system. Because if you can’t source your claims then you and your candidate Koockvar are lying.

  2. @LycoGirl..

    Thank you so much. I appreciate your kind words.
    Please don’t let me keep me from you placing your comments in here…you voice is needed.

  3. Just chiming in to tell Susan how much I admire her posts (I may have done that in the past as well). Just when I think I’m going to post a reply, I see you have already made the argument I was going to make, only more eloquently and more informative than I would have, and with infinitely more class than Sean. You can tell who’s losing the debate when the personal, juvenile attacks come out.

    You go, Girl!

  4. Seany..
    Ending Glass–Steagal was not a crime, it was a chance to prove that the free markets and capitalism could function without protection. Well, the experiment failed because human greed overcame ethics and morality.
    When Bush established his housing initiative it also was not a bad idea, I supported it because it opened the door for people to have a home of their own. For the middle class home ownership was a ticket to prosperity, why not help poorer people who historically pay their bills gain some prosperity the same way? It was a good idea. HOWEVER…no one could realize how human greed the best and brightest would corrupt the program by engaging in fraud. No one could imagine that hedge fund managers would bet against the country, that mortgages would fail. The fact is…bankers sat before a congressional committee and lied…and also said they never expected the rise of real estate would ever fall below 10%. What kind of bankers are they? Do the really want us to believe they are naive or stupid? Add to that the tax credits for builders that encouraged them to over build, not just houses, but huge houses…media rooms, man caves, granite kitchens, the intent was for starter housing…not McMansions. In Nevada a housing tract of 250,000 dollar homes was built adjacent to a pig farm. One buyer interviewed said he bought it to sell it the next year for a 10% profit. That was the crazy mindset that buyers were whipped into…everyone wanted to be a house flipper.
    US mortgages historically have always been a globally accepted safe investment, government entities invested pension funds, corporations and unions invested pension funds in them, foreign entities invested in them. Safe. Historically safe.
    While repealing regulations in banking and finance was an experiment in human nature, it was not a license to steal, the bankers and finance community asked for it for years and have proved they cannot be trusted. As the timeline goes, not the blame, the timeline, the crisis began when the housing initiative opened the door to no down payments, no paper work, no verification of employment, the initiative did not excuse the bankers from fiduciary duty, they gleefully abandoned it. If Bush can admit to it others certainly should be able to.
    And certainly this proves regulations are still needed.

  5. Dear Kathleen…
    This is a page that asks for comments…feel free to fill it.
    I have read the Ryan Plan…so I know what I am talking about. When Mr Fitzpatrick holds an open town hall as we seniors have requested to discuss the fallacies about the Ryan plan then he and you will be more informed.

  6. Either the Boockvar trolls are filling the comment section or the majority have no idea what they are talking about. I would strongly suggest they attend a meeting so as to learn the facts about the Romney-Ryan plan and stop drinking the Progressive’ Kool Aid.

  7. The beginning of the financial crisis was with Clinton and his signing the repeal of Glass Steagal. The depression era law that seperated the three forms of banks. He also aided Alan Greenspan who eroded time tested cash requirements in banks that reduced reserves to epic lows that caused many of the failures of the past 5 years.

    But back to another point, The accounts were OPTIONAL not required. It also was not applicable to either of you two old and crabby women. I bet thhis is why you are both alone.

  8. A vote for Fitzpatrick is a vote for no equal pay, no birth control, no health care, no protection from abuse and rape.

    He has nothing to offer women, but babies and a the kitchen. A lot to offer his gender to help keep women in their place of NO EQUALITY.

  9. Republicans are scared and they should be! They have nothing to run but their mouths. Bad party, bad policies.

  10. And here is the beginning of the housing fraud that crashed the market. So after all this we should consider the Bush plan for Social Security viable? Wall Street is just salivating at the thought of getting all this money.

    The Boston Globe 2004
    Zero-down mortgage initiative by Bush is hit
    Budget office says plan likely to spur more loan defaults

    By Chris Reidy, Globe Staff | October 5, 2004

    President Bush’s weekend campaign promise that he will push legislation allowing for no money down on some federally insured mortgages could cost taxpayers as much as $500 million over four years because of a higher rate of defaults, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

    The election-year idea may appeal to those who can’t save as fast as home prices are rising. But some financial planners warn that increasingly common no- and low-down-payment programs can be ruinous for some consumers — especially if home values decline.

    If housing prices fall, consumers with little or no money of their own invested in the home are more vulnerable to ending up with mortgages larger than the value of the house.

    And those who can’t afford large down payments usually don’t have enough savings to serve as a cushion if someone in the household gets sick or is laid off.

    “If you’re really stretching, maybe you should back off and look at a less expensive house,” said Joan Gray Anderson, a professor of family financial counseling at the University of Rhode Island.

    Bush proposed zero-down-payment legislation earlier this year. The Congressional Budget Office has contended for months that the proposal would generate huge losses, an assessment that could be a stumbling block for the bill’s passage. But the Department of Housing and Urban Development thinks the program could be run on a break-even basis.

    Bush contends that reducing the required 3 percent down in the Federal Housing Administration mortgage program to zero down would help 150,000 first-time buyers in the first year. Homeownership rates are now about 69 percent nationwide, compared to about 64 percent 10 years ago. The FHA insures many private-lender home loans.

    “To build an ownership society, we’ll help even more Americans to buy homes,” Bush said in an Ohio speech to home builders. “Some families are more than able to pay a mortgage but just don’t have the savings to put money down.”

    A spokesman for the campaign of Senator John F. Kerry said the plan will help “relatively few families.” Kerry’s emphasis is on preserving affordable-housing programs that he says Bush has slashed.

    Meanwhile, low- and no-down-payment mortgages are available to more people than in the past. A 30-year fixed-rate mortgage with a 20 percent down payment is one of many options available today. Home buyers are making smaller down payments on a percentage basis, and sometimes choosing adjustable-rate mortgages or obtaining two mortgages on a purchase.

    According to a 2003 survey by the National Association of Realtors, the median down payment for a first-time home buyer equaled 6 percent of the purchase price.

    Several factors account for the reduced popularity of the traditional 20 percent down payment. In recent years, homes have been appreciating in value by about 10 percent annually, said Denise Leonard, incoming president of the Massachusetts Mortgage Association and a senior vice president at Constitution Financial Group, a mortgage lender in Wakefield. Such rapid appreciation helps to protect lenders in the event of delinquencies, she said.

    Meanwhile, rising home prices, and rising rents, make it harder for first-time buyers to scrape together a down payment. The mortgage industry has responded by offering more flexible products, Leonard said. The industry takes steps to ensure that these products go only to consumers who can show they have a good history of managing credit.

    “You can’t get these products if you’re not creditworthy,” she said.

    But in Boston and Providence, said URI’s Anderson, even with no-down-payment mortgages, high prices can keep homes out of reach.

    “There are not a lot of entry-level homes in these markets,” she said.

    The Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America, a Boston-based nonprofit advocacy group that provides housing services, has been a pioneer in no-down-payment mortgages, offering them for a decade to working-class consumers, said chief executive Bruce Marks. The group came in for early criticism, he said, because of a belief that consumers needed to have a financial stake in a new home.

    The group’s no-down-payment mortgages are similar to those the federal government offered to veterans after World War II, Marks said, and its track record shows that such loans are unlikely to be defaulted on.

    MassHousing, the state’s affordable-housing bank, has had a similar experience in the two years it has been offering loans with no down payment, said executive director Tom Gleason. They’ve performed well in a strong housing market and are likely to be “common in the future,” he said.

    An unanswered question remains, he acknowledged: “We have no experience of how these loans will perform when the market is weak.”

    Chris Reidy can be reached at
    © Copyright 2006 Globe Newspaper Company

  11. This is Bush explaining the crisis he helped create. It was his housing initiative with tax credits for builders and no down payments and no paper work that led to over building and fraud by lenders.

    President Bush’s Speech to the Nation on the Economic Crisis

    Following is a transcript of President Bush’s address to the nation Wednesday evening, as recorded by by CQ Transcriptions:

    Good evening. This is an extraordinary period for America’s economy.

    Over the past few weeks, many Americans have felt anxiety about their finances and their future. I understand their worry and their frustration.

    We’ve seen triple-digit swings in the stock market. Major financial institutions have teetered on the edge of collapse, and some have failed. As uncertainty has grown, many banks have restricted lending, credit markets have frozen, and families and businesses have found it harder to borrow money.

    We’re in the midst of a serious financial crisis, and the federal government is responding with decisive action.

    We boosted confidence in money market mutual funds and acted to prevent major investors from intentionally driving down stocks for their own personal gain.

    Most importantly, my administration is working with Congress to address the root cause behind much of the instability in our markets.

    Financial assets related to home mortgages have lost value during the house decline, and the banks holding these assets have restricted credit. As a result, our entire economy is in danger.

    So I propose that the federal government reduce the risk posed by these troubled assets and supply urgently needed money so banks and other financial institutions can avoid collapse and resume lending.

    This rescue effort is not aimed at preserving any individual company or industry. It is aimed at preserving America’s overall economy.

    It will help American consumers and businesses get credit to meet their daily needs and create jobs. And it will help send a signal to markets around the world that America’s financial system is back on track.

    I know many Americans have questions tonight: How did we reach this point in our economy? How will the solution I propose work? And what does this mean for your financial future?

    These are good questions, and they deserve clear answers.

    First, how did our economy reach this point? Well, most economists agree that the problems we’re witnessing today developed over a long period of time. For more than a decade, a massive amount of money flowed into the United States from investors abroad because our country is an attractive and secure place to do business.

    This large influx of money to U.S. banks and financial institutions, along with low interest rates, made it easier for Americans to get credit. These developments allowed more families to borrow money for cars, and homes, and college tuition, some for the first time. They allowed more entrepreneurs to get loans to start new businesses and create jobs.

    Unfortunately, there were also some serious negative consequences, particularly in the housing market. Easy credit, combined with the faulty assumption that home values would continue to rise, led to excesses and bad decisions.

    Many mortgage lenders approved loans for borrowers without carefully examining their ability to pay. Many borrowers took out loans larger than they could afford, assuming that they could sell or refinance their homes at a higher price later on.

    Optimism about housing values also led to a boom in home construction. Eventually, the number of new houses exceeded the number of people willing to buy them. And with supply exceeding demand, housing prices fell, and this created a problem.

    BUSH: Borrowers with adjustable-rate mortgages, who had been planning to sell or refinance their homes at a higher price, were stuck with homes worth less than expected, along with mortgage payments they could not afford.

    As a result, many mortgage-holders began to default. These widespread defaults had effects far beyond the housing market.

    See, in today’s mortgage industry, home loans are often packaged together and converted into financial products called mortgage-backed securities. These securities were sold to investors around the world.

    Many investors assumed these securities were trustworthy and asked few questions about their actual value. Two of the leading purchasers of mortgage-backed securities were Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

    Because these companies were chartered by Congress, many believed they were guaranteed by the federal government. This allowed them to borrow enormous sums of money, fuel the market for questionable investments, and put our financial system at risk.

    The decline in the housing market set off a domino effect across our economy. When home values declined, borrowers defaulted on their mortgages, and investors holding mortgage-backed securities began to incur serious losses.

    Before long, these securities became so unreliable that they were not being bought or sold. Investment banks, such as Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, found themselves saddled with large amounts of assets they could not sell. They ran out of money needed to meet their immediate obligations, and they faced imminent collapse.

    Other banks found themselves in severe financial trouble. These banks began holding on to their money, and lending dried up, and the gears of the American financial system began grinding to a halt.

    With the situation becoming more precarious by the day, I faced a choice, to step in with dramatic government action or to stand back and allow the irresponsible actions of some to undermine the financial security of all.

    I’m a strong believer in free enterprise, so my natural instinct is to oppose government intervention. I believe companies that make bad decisions should be allowed to go out of business. Under normal circumstances, I would have followed this course. But these are not normal circumstances. The market is not functioning properly. There has been a widespread loss of confidence, and major sectors of America’s financial system are at risk of shutting down.

    The government’s top economic experts warn that, without immediate action by Congress, America could slip into a financial panic and a distressing scenario would unfold.

    More banks could fail, including some in your community. The stock market would drop even more, which would reduce the value of your retirement account. The value of your home could plummet. Foreclosures would rise dramatically.

    And if you own a business or a farm, you would find it harder and more expensive to get credit. More businesses would close their doors, and millions of Americans could lose their jobs.

    Even if you have good credit history, it would be more difficult for you to get the loans you need to buy a car or send your children to college. And, ultimately, our country could experience a long and painful recession.

    Fellow citizens, we must not let this happen. I appreciate the work of leaders from both parties in both houses of Congress to address this problem and to make improvements to the proposal my administration sent to them.

    There is a spirit of cooperation between Democrats and Republicans and between Congress and this administration. In that spirit, I’ve invited Senators McCain and Obama to join congressional leaders of both parties at the White House tomorrow to help speed our discussions toward a bipartisan bill.

    I know that an economic rescue package will present a tough vote for many members of Congress. It is difficult to pass a bill that commits so much of the taxpayers’ hard-earned money.

    I also understand the frustration of responsible Americans who pay their mortgages on time, file their tax returns every April 15th, and are reluctant to pay the cost of excesses on Wall Street.

    But given the situation we are facing, not passing a bill now would cost these Americans much more later.

    Many Americans are asking, how would a rescue plan work? After much discussion, there’s now widespread agreement on the principles such a plan would include.

    It would remove the risk posed by the troubled assets, including mortgage-backed securities, now clogging the financial system. This would free banks to resume the flow of credit to American families and businesses.

    Any rescue plan should also be designed to ensure that taxpayers are protected. It should welcome the participation of financial institutions, large and small. It should make certain that failed executives do not receive a windfall from your tax dollars.

    BUSH: It should establish a bipartisan board to oversee the plan’s implementation, and it should be enacted as soon as possible.

    In close consultation with Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, and SEC Chairman Chris Cox, I announced a plan on Friday.

    First, the plan is big enough to solve a serious problem. Under our proposal, the federal government would put up to $700 billion taxpayer dollars on the line to purchase troubled assets that are clogging the financial system.

    In the short term, this will free up banks to resume the flow of credit to American families and businesses, and this will help our economy grow.

    Second, as markets have lost confidence in mortgage-backed securities, their prices have dropped sharply, yet the value of many of these assets will likely be higher than their current price, because the vast majority of Americans will ultimately pay off their mortgages.

    The government is the one institution with the patience and resources to buy these assets at their current low prices and hold them until markets return to normal.

    And when that happens, money will flow back to the Treasury as these assets are sold, and we expect that much, if not all, of the tax dollars we invest will be paid back.

    The final question is, what does this mean for your economic future? Well, the primary steps — purpose of the steps I’ve outlined tonight is to safeguard the financial security of American workers, and families, and small businesses. The federal government also continues to enforce laws and regulations protecting your money.

    The Treasury Department recently offered government insurance for money market mutual funds. And through the FDIC, every savings account, checking account, and certificate of deposit is insured by the federal government for up to $100,000.

    The FDIC has been in existence for 75 years, and no one has ever lost a penny on an insured deposit, and this will not change.

    Once this crisis is resolved, there will be time to update our financial regulatory structures. Our 21st-century global economy remains regulated largely by outdated 20th-century laws.

    Recently, we’ve seen how one company can grow so large that its failure jeopardizes the entire financial system.

    Earlier this year, Secretary Paulson proposed a blueprint that would modernize our financial regulations. For example, the Federal Reserve would be authorized to take a closer look at the operations of companies across the financial spectrum and ensure that their practices do not threaten overall financial stability.

    There are other good ideas, and members of Congress should consider them. As they do, they must ensure that efforts to regulate Wall Street do not end up hampering our economy’s ability to grow.

    In the long run, Americans have good reason to be confident in our economic strength. Despite corrections in the marketplace and instances of abuse, democratic capitalism is the best system ever devised.

    It has unleashed the talents and the productivity and entrepreneurial spirit of our citizens. It has made this country the best place in the world to invest and do business. And it gives our economy the flexibility and resilience to absorb shocks, adjust, and bounce back.

    Our economy is facing a moment of great challenge, but we’ve overcome tough challenges before, and we will overcome this one.

    I know that Americans sometimes get discouraged by the tone in Washington and the seemingly endless partisan struggles, yet history has shown that, in times of real trial, elected officials rise to the occasion.

    And together we will show the world once again what kind of country America is: a nation that tackles problems head on, where leaders come together to meet great tests, and where people of every background can work hard, develop their talents, and realize their dreams.

  12. Social Security is an insurance plan…not ever intended to be a 401k or defined pension benefit.
    I pays benefits till death. There are many citizens today who took a terrible loss in the financial crisis, 3 Trillion dollars in private pension money was lost down the black hole on Wall St. Anyone receiving Social Security today realized how protected they are. And Social Security income is also taxed so the seniors on the receiving end are paying back and for some it is 1/12 th of the annual benefit. What you don’t know would enlighten you.

  13. @Sean ….

    I am still a taxpayer…at 71… with a tax rate higher than Romney…21%.

    Do you kiss your mother with that mouth?

  14. Here Alex, since you were still n middle school I figure you might want to know some real facts regarding the Bush Social Security Plan in 2005.

    And its from that rightwing news organization CNN.
    Here are some of the topics Bush addressed and some further details from a fact sheet on his proposal.

    Would reform affect everyone? The president has said all along that any reform would not affect the benefits of current and near retirees. On Wednesday, he specified that benefits of anyone age 55 and older will not be changed.

    Who could open an investment account? The accounts are voluntary. But participation would be phased in over three years according to age. In the first year — 2009 — workers born from 1950 to 1965 could open accounts. In the second year, workers born from 1950 to 1978 could open accounts. In the third year, anyone born after 1950 could opt for an account.

    How much payroll tax would be diverted to individual investment accounts? President Bush indicated that eventually, workers would be permitted to invest up to a third of the 12.4 percent payroll tax that they and their employers pay on their wages. (Workers pay 6.2 percent and their employers pay the other 6.2 percent.)

    Annual contributions would be capped at $1,000 in 2009 and thereafter rise slightly more than $100 per year.

    How would we pay for the costs of creating individual investments accounts? Payroll taxes are used to pay current retirees, so diverting a portion of them creates a shortfall in the ability to pay full benefits.

    The transition costs of diverting a third of payroll taxes to individual investment accounts have been estimated at around $2 trillion over the next 10 years. That assumes, though, that a third of payroll tax is diverted for each of the 10 years.

    The White House in December indicated the government would borrow the money to make up for that shortfall. But on Wednesday, the president didn’t mention that.

    Instead, he said the diversion of tax to individual accounts wouldn’t be abrupt. Bush recommended “starting personal retirement accounts gradually and raising the yearly limits on contributions over time, eventually permitting all workers to set aside four percentage points of their payroll taxes in their accounts.”

    That would lessen the immediate impact on the U.S. budget by somewhat reducing the transition costs, said Ron Gebhardtsbauer, senior pension fellow at the American Academy of Actuaries.

    How would individual accounts work? The accounts would be modeled on the Thrift Savings Plan — a 401-k type program that is already available to government employees — and centrally administered by the government.

    Workers would have a choice of five broadly diversified index funds and a lifecycle fund, in which the portfolio grows more conservative as the investor nears retirement.

    “We will make sure there are good options to protect your investments from sudden market swings on the eve of your retirement,” the president said in his speech. Specifically, when a worker turns 47 the account will automatically be invested in the lifecycle fund unless the worker and his or her spouse sign a waiver opting out.

    In terms of fees, the Social Security Administration estimates the administrative cost per account will be 0.3 percentage points.

    Money in the accounts could not be taken out or borrowed before retirement. At retirement, it’s likely workers would have to annuitize a portion and only take out a lump sum if doing so would not result in the worker moving below the poverty line. Any unused portion of the account could be left to heirs.

    What other options would the president consider to make Social Security solvent? President Bush again ruled out increasing the payroll tax — which is 12.4 percent of one’s wages up to a certain cap ($90,000 this year). But in his remarks Wednesday he said, “fixing Social Security permanently will require an open, candid review of the options. … I will work with members of Congress to find the most effective combination of reforms.”

    Among those he cited as “on the table” were:

    limiting benefits for wealthy retirees;

    indexing benefits to prices rather than wages;

    increasing the retirement age; and

    discouraging taking Social Security benefits early.

  15. @seanryan. You obviously have short-term memory. The planned proposed by Bush would result in 30% more Americans investing their savings in Wall Street. And we saw what happened just a few years later. Thank God that plan failed, or millions more Americans would have lost all of their savings. The Republican plan has always been and always will be giving Americans savings into the hands of greedy wall street executives who pocket the profits and avoid consequences

  16. Susan,
    Bush’s plan called for individual accounts much like IRA’s with the OPTION of having them controled like a 401k. It did not mandate this and it would allow for people to have a retirement savings.

    Susan Gibbons is just a leech on the system and is only concerned about 1 thing, sucking up as many resources as possible now so that the future generations won’t have anything.

    Also, keep Koockvar’s face off of the tv screen. She loses votes everytime it appears.

  17. Finally! Boockvar is on the attack, Highlighting Mike Fitzpatrick’s atrocious voting record. And @Ryan. Thank You for illustrating to us why we can’t let Repubicant’s get back into the White House again. They nearly destroyed this country, now they’re blaming it on someone else

  18. Medicare is broke. Doing nothing is not going to solve the program’s financial problem. Ryan’s plan resolves some of those problems without completely gutting the program. Doing nothing will lead to no Medicare at all in 30 years.

    Personally, I think the Ryan plan does not go far enough. Rationing is the only responsible solution. I was so disappointed by the Democrats for backing away from it. It is quite absurd we spend over five figures a month on people who will die in a few months.

  19. As a senior citizen I resent being told Medicare will not affect those over 55. Telling me ..”you got yours so don’t worry about others” is the message . I reject that message.
    Those others include my kid and grand kids. My oldest child is a decade from retirement. That is not a long time. Her generation is struggling to catch up having taking a big loss in their retirement accounts thanks to Wall St. They have suffered a decline in income and the future looks bleak if they have to buy their own insurance on the market where the lifetime caps and the preexisting conditions will be restored following the promise of repeal of the ACA. The vouchers will hardly pay half of any premium for consumers who will no longer have the buying power of groups. My children are counting on having the Medicare their mother has, and they can have it. Medicare can be saved, it can be fixed, and it does not have to be privatized to do it . It takes the will of elected legislators to put the people first, before their own careers.

  20. Dear Ms Bender..
    You denied Fitzpatrick supported privatizing SS. Here is the fact. So, he is a flip flopper…what are we to believe? Changing positions for the purpose of getting elected does not instill any confidence in voters. Going along to get along is not courageous.
    Social Security
    In 2005, Fitzpatrick supported President George W. Bush’s plan to create private accounts for individuals in the Social Security program. Democrats said he was flipping from his 2004 campaign promise not to privatize the entitlement program.
    By 2010, the program had racked up huge deficits, but Fitzpatrick remained relatively mum about it during his campaign. His web site said he opposed privatization and would “look for meaningful reforms to Social Security,” once the economy got back on track.
    Fitzpatrick’s opponents accused him of secretly plotting to privatize Medicare and Social Security when he held campaign events with Blackburn, who had proposed giving vouchers to seniors on Medicare for private medical care.

  • Who are you voting for in the PA Supreme Court race?

    • Dan McCaffery (61%)
    • Carolyn Carluccio (37%)
    • Still undecided (2%)

    Total Voters: 344

    Loading ... Loading ...
Continue to Browser


To install tap and choose
Add to Home Screen