As you may or may not know, the top two contenders in Democratic primary to succeed retiring U.S. Senator Barbara Mikulski (D. MD) are Reps. Chris Van Hollen (D. MD) and Donna Edwards (D. MD). Both are strong candidates but one key issue might be the make or break for Democratic voters:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
In a campaign email to supporters after the press conference, Edwards said she, unlike Van Hollen, deserves the backing of people who care deeply about Social Security.
“This morning, I joined with my colleagues in reintroducing an important bill that would protect and expand Social Security,” Edwards wrote. “There were a number of new faces, but I have always been there.
“As an original co-sponsor of the Social Security 2100 Act to expand Social Security benefits, I am thrilled that more and more elected officials are recognizing that too many of America's seniors live on the edge,” Edwards' email continued. “Too many Democrats -- to say nothing of Republicans -- remain all too willing to hurt grandparents, retired veterans, and the disabled in the name of ‘compromise.’”
Edwards' emphasis that she has "always" supported Social Security and her scare quotes around "compromise" are a dig at Van Hollen, who has been targeted by progressive activists backing Edwards. They've been bashing Van Hollen for his previous support of a deficit-reduction framework that included cuts to Social Security. In 2012, he endorsed the concept of the Simpson-Bowles plan in failed legislation that aimed to avoid automatic federal spending cuts. That plan would have increased the taxable maximum on income, calculated cost-of-living raises differently to slow spending, and raised the retirement age in 2050. - Huffington Post, 3/18/15
The whole piece is a great read but for the record, Van Hollen has come out in support of Rep. John Larson's (D. CT) bill that would give a sizable boost in payments to the poorest quarter of Social Security recipients, and would make it fully funded for 75 years. The legislation would shore up the trust fund largely by imposing the tax on incomes above $400,000. This has earned Van Hollen an endorsement from Max Richtman, president and CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. But progressive groups like Social Security Works, MoveOn.org, Democracy for America, Credo Action and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee are continuing to push Van Hollen on this issue:
"Van Hollen's support for the expansion of Social Security will mean little if, when push comes to shove, he supports a deal to cut benefits, as he has said he was open to considering in the past,” Becky Bond, political director at Credo Action, said in a statement to HuffPost. “Van Hollen will have ample opportunity on the campaign trail to speak directly to the voters of Maryland and we hope he takes this opportunity to make a clear and public promise to vote no on any legislative proposal that includes cuts to Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid benefits."
Nick Berning of MoveOn.org sounded a similar note. "It is well and good to say that one opposes Social Security benefit cuts in the abstract -- and even that one supports expanding Social Security -- but that position means little if one is willing to support a larger budget package that contains Social Security benefit cuts," Berning said.
While it's good to hear Van Hollen stating he is against cutting Social Security, he will have to answer to the question about expanding Social Security. Stay tuned to see how this primary plays out.