Linda McMahon on Social Security



Can't offer specifics or I'll be ''demagogued'' by press

Republican Linda McMahon explained why she hasn't offered specifics on how she'd change Social Security and Medicare to keep the programs financially solvent, saying she would be ''demagogued'' for providing detailed ideas. When asked about what she would do to shore up the two benefits, McMahon acknowledged ''there are several things to think about,'' but said she has purposely ''not offered specifics when I'm on the campaign trail because I'd get demagogued.''

Afterward, McMahon told reporters the media are the ones doing the damagoguing of Medicare and Social Security. ''Thanks to all you all folks in the media, you're the ones who primarily do it and bash any suggestions that might be made to improve either Social Security or Medicare,'' she said.

Murphy pounced on McMahon's ''demagoguing'' comment, accusing McMahon of admitting she doesn't want to risk votes by offering up specific ideas to the voters.

Source: Boston Globe coverage of 2012 CT Senate debate , Oct 18, 2012

Debate & analyze entitlement reform, but no budget cuts

When asked about what she would do to shore up Social Security and Medicare, McMahon said federal lawmakers need to ''sit down and put those issues on the table and go through them all and debate them and have the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) score them and to see what economically makes sense and how we're going to move forward, protecting our benefits and making sure that both Social Security and Medicare are there for the long term,'' McMahon said. ''To do nothing is irresponsible.''

Murphy has accused McMahon of wanting to ''sunset'' or phase out Social Security after 10 to 15 years for a review, pointing to taped comments she made to a group of tea party activists earlier this year when she used the word sunset. He has also accused McMahon of supporting proposals to privatize Medicare. McMahon has denied both accusations and repeated that she would not support a budget that cuts funding to either program.

Source: Boston Globe coverage of 2012 CT Senate debate , Oct 18, 2012

Bipartisan reforms but no privatization

Q: How would you protect Social Security?

A: Linda understands both programs need to be strengthened because at this point insolvency is imminent for both programs unless they are strengthened. She believes any efforts to strengthen these programs must have broad bipartisan support, and she will not support any efforts to strengthen these programs that does not have broad bipartisan support. She's also opposed to and would not support any efforts to privatize these public programs.

Source: Hartford Courant in 2012 AARP Senate Voter Guide , Aug 24, 2012

Don't take benefits away from seniors

McMahon said, "Medicare is part of this whole total health care reform that we have to look at. I don't think it's like picking one thing out of it at a time".

McMahon, of course, is hardly alone among candidates in avoiding committing herself to cutting Medicare, Social Security, or any of the other federal spending programs. There is a reason Medicare and Social Security are known as third-rail issues: touch them, and die. "I don't want to take any benefits away from seniors," she said.

Source: Mark Pazniokas in The Connecticut Mirror , Mar 19, 2010

Other candidates on Social Security: Linda McMahon on other issues:
CT Gubernatorial:
Bob Stefanowski
Dan Malloy
Danny Drew
David Walker
Joe Visconti
Larry Kudlow
Mark Lauretti
Ned Lamont
Peter Lumaj
Prasad Srinivasan
Tom Foley
CT Senatorial:
Ann-Marie Adams
August Wolf
Chris Murphy
Dan Carter
Jack Orchulli
Matthew Corey
Richard Blumenthal
Tom Foley

CT politicians
CT Archives
Senate races 2017-8:
AL: Strange(R) vs.Jones(D) vs.Moore<(R)
AZ: Flake(R) vs. Ward(R) vs.Sinema(D) vs.Abboud(D) vs.McSally(R) vs.Arpaio(R) vs.Marks(L)
CA: Feinstein(D) vs. Eisen(I) vs. Sanchez?(D) vs.de_Leon(D)
CT: Murphy(D) vs.Adams(D) vs.Corey(R)
DE: Carper(D) vs.Arlett(R) vs.Truono(R) vs.Boyce(R) vs. Markell?(D)
FL: Nelson(D) vs. DeSantis(R) vs. Jolly(R) vs. Rick Scott(R) vs.Invictus(R) vs.Janowski(I)
HI: Hirono(D) vs.Curtis(R) vs.McDermott(R)
IN: Donnelly(D) vs. Hurt(R) vs.Messer(R) vs.Rokita(R) vs.Braun(R) vs.Straw(P)
MA: Warren(D) vs. Ayyadurai(I) vs.Waters(R) vs.Lindstrom(R) vs.Diehl(R) vs.Wellman(R) vs.Kingston(R)
MD: Cardin(D) vs.Campbell(R) vs.Vohra(L) vs.Manning(D) vs.Faddis(R)
ME: King(I) vs.Brakey(R) vs.Ringelstein(D) vs.Lyons(L)
MI: Stabenow(D) vs. Bouchard(R) vs.Young(R) vs.James(R) vs.Squier(G)
MN-2: Franken(R) vs.Smith(D) vs.Housley(R)
MN-6: Klobuchar(D) vs.Newberger(R) vs.Overby(G)
MO: McCaskill(D) vs.Petersen(R) vs.Petersen(R) vs.Monetti(R) vs.Hawley(R)
MS-2: vs.Hyde-Smith(R) vs. McDaniel(R) vs.Espy(D) vs.Reeves(R)
MS-6: Wicker(R) vs.Baria(D) vs.Bohren(D)
MT: Tester(D) vs.Olszewski(R) vs.Rosendale(R)

ND: Heitkamp(D) vs.Peyer(D) vs.Cramer(R) vs.Campbell(R)
NE: Fischer(R) vs.Raybould(D)
NJ: Menendez(D) vs. Chiesa(R) vs.Pezzullo(R) vs.Hugin(R) vs.Sabrin(L)
NM: Heinrich(D) vs.Rich(R) vs.Johnson(L)
NV: Heller(R) vs.Tarkanian(R) vs.Rosen(D)
NY: Gillibrand(D) vs. Kennedy(D) vs.Webber(R) vs.Farley(R) vs.Noren(D)
OH: Brown(D) vs. Mandel(R) vs.Gibbons(R) vs.Renacci(R)
PA: Casey(D) vs. Saccone(R) vs.Barletta(R) vs.Christiana(R)
RI: Whitehouse(D) vs.Nardolillo(R) vs.Flanders(R)
TN: Corker(R) vs.Bredesen(D) vs.Mackler(D) vs.Crim(D) vs.Fincher(R) vs.Blackburn(R)
TX: Cruz(R) vs. Bush(R) vs.O`Rourke(D)
UT: Hatch(R) vs. McMullin(R) vs.Wilson(D) vs.Romney(R) vs.Bowden(L)
VA: Kaine(D) vs. Fiorina(R) vs.Stewart(R) vs.Freitas(R)
VT: Sanders(I) vs.Milne(D) vs.MacGovern(D) vs.Paige(R) vs.Zupan(R)
WA: Cantwell(D) vs.Hutchison(R) vs.Ferguson(D) vs.Luke(L) vs.Strider(L)
WI: Baldwin(D) vs.Vukmir(R)
WV: Manchin(D) vs. Raese(R) vs.Morrisey(R) vs.Swearengin(D) vs.Jenkins(R) vs.Blankenship(I)
WY: Barrasso(R) vs.Trauner(D)
Civil Rights
Foreign Policy
Free Trade
Govt. Reform
Gun Control
Health Care
Homeland Security
Social Security
Tax Reform

Other Senators
Senate Votes (analysis)
Bill Sponsorships
Policy Reports
Group Ratings
Search for...

Page last updated: Jan 17, 2019