Political Radar

`Huge contrast'

August 6th, 2014

The Progressive Change Campaign Committee is sponsoring online advertisements that claim there is a "huge contrast" between U.S. Sen. Brian Schatz and U.S. Rep. Colleen Hanabusa on Social Security.

Progressives and advocates for seniors have dinged Hanabusa for voting for an amendment in 2013 that would have urged President Barack Obama to use the Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction plan as a guide. Critics of the Simpson-Bowles plan have said it relied too heavily on entitlement reform.

Hanabusa has said that she did not favor the Social Security provisions in the Simpson-Bowles plan -- and her positions on key issues related to Social Security are similar to Schatz's -- but that has not stopped the senator and his allies from using Social Security as a differentiator in the Democratic primary.

From the PCCC:

The biggest thing that will motivate voters is the huge contrast between Senator Brian Schatz and Colleen Hanabusa on Social Security. Here are three things every voter should know:

  1. Colleen Hanabusa voted for the Simpson-Bowles plan to cut Social Security.
  2. Hanabusa refused to support House progressives when they opposed cuts to Social Security.
  3. Hanabusa attacked Senator Schatz for joining Elizabeth Warren and others in the push to expand Social Security benefits, not cut them.


9 Responses to “`Huge contrast'”

  1. Chicken Grease:

    This REALLY should be in bold. So let's do it:

    1. Colleen Hanabusa voted for the Simpson-Bowles plan to cut Social Security.

    2. Hanabusa refused to support House progressives when they opposed cuts to Social Security.

    3. Hanabusa attacked Senator Schatz for joining Elizabeth Warren and others in the push to expand Social Security benefits, not cut them.

    Are we also quoting bruddah ag . . . yeah, we are:

    Shaun Campbell:
    July 25th, 2014 at 7:12 pm

    Here's where Hanabusa voted for Simpson-Bowles plan that would actually have cut back Social Security for our kupuna: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/113-2013/h36

    When a bunch of you say, "oh, Simpson-Bowles plan WASN'T to cut social security," well, essentially . . . what the H3LL are you talking about????? And why isn't HanaBuSa saying the same thing youse are saying????? It's because she knows she CAN'T refute it!!!!!

    # # #

  2. Manoa_Fisherman:

    Chicken, Chicken, Chicken, please take your medications. I am sure by now that the Schatz campaign has enough problems, much less than having to put out the brush fires you have been creating that in reality only serve to benefit Hanabusa's chances. I strongly suspect that in fact you may be an operative for the Hanabusa campaign to suppress Schatz voters and urge Hanabusa's supporters to vote by the way you seek to irritate all voters.

    As for Elizabeth Warren, I hope the Democrats nominate her to run against the next Republican presidential candidate. That would guaranty a GOP victory and give the country a break from the nut jobs on the extreme left that have put the United States in an economic hole bigger than the one that was handed to Barry Obama.

  3. kamaaina808:

    With Winer involved in the campaign, I trust nothing from Schatz.

  4. Chicken Grease:

    August 6th, 2014 at 6:58 pm

    Chicken, Chicken, Chicken, please take your medications. [emphasis mine]

    Lesson for you (a Grease means, you need so many), Manoa: educated folk understand "medication" interchangeable as a singular and plural noun. Others -- not the least of who are on MANY drugs -- end up expressing "medications" [emphasis mine]; which is an ignorant expression of the word.

    And it is probably because medication is the highlight of their life.


  5. Chicken Grease:

    "Not the least of whom" [emphasis mine] if a Grease can correct himself before YOU manage to catch the mistake (I mean, none of us have a millennium to spare), Manoa_.

  6. Chicken Grease:

    Ah, heck. It's "not the least of which" [emphasis (sigh) mine]; still corrected it before YOU did, Manoa. 😛

  7. innocent observer:

    shatz cannot expand social security and he knows it, to say that he will is only lying. no one in congress in their right mind will expand ss benefits because it will cause other working class people to pay more ss taxes. all current ss retirees will get more than they put in, what the hell do they expect? that they contribute $1 and get back $10? ludicrous. just like winer, shatz is only deceiving the people about expanding ss benefits, they will have difficulty just keeping the current benefits when reality sets in and the SS fund is bankrupt.

  8. Sayer:

    Agree with Innocent Observer. He's just pandering to the masses. He can't deliver and he knows it.

  9. nonpolitic:

    It's ironic that Mr. Schatz is touting his support of expanding programs that assist the elderly, especially since in 2001 and 2002 while in the state House of Representatives, he voted against bills that would have provided tax exemptions to Medicare and Medicaid service providers, thereby increasing access to healthcare for Medicare and Medicaid recipients (HB1918), and to persons and organizations that purchase food products and provide meal services to the elderly and handicapped (HB257). One of those tax exemption bills that he voted no on would have provided a tax exemption directly to elderly persons buying their own food as well. So much for being a champion for the elderly.

Leave a Reply

By participating in online discussions you acknowledge that you have agreed to the Star-Advertiser's TERMS OF SERVICE. An insightful discussion of ideas and viewpoints is encouraged, but comments must be civil and in good taste, with no personal attacks. Because only subscribers are allowed to comment, we have your personal information and are able to contact you. If your comments are inappropriate, you may be banned from posting. To report comments that you believe do not follow our guidelines, email commentfeedback@staradvertiser.com.