newsobserver.com projects - Social Security - Comments

Re: DHHS laptops secured, agency says

losmeme — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 20:57:59 -0500

Too little, too late.

Re: Hagan's 'Market' ad on Dole

CitizenOpinionated — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 16:55:24 -0400

Hagan is dense...Dole wants to privatize social security so the younger generation gets to have the same benefits that they pay into...

What does Hagan propose for social security...

"Kay understands that Washington is broken and North Carolina families are frustrated at the lack of representation for them on the federal level. She will protect Social Security benefits."
Source: Campaign website, www.kayhagan.com, "Issues" May 21, 2008

Wow that makes me feel more secure about the weekly amount that is taken out of my paycheck and put into the hands of the government...the same government that caused this financial crisis...thanks Chris Dodd and Chuck Schumer.

Social Security and Voter Registration

gercohen — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 15:16:18 -0400

This post as well as the print edition story that appeared today (and the front page story yesterday) are just plain wrong.

The Help American Vote Act of 2002 REQUIRES each state to ask voters for their drivers license number and last four digits of the social security number. If the first number matches the state DMV database, or the second number matches the federal SSN database, then everything is done with. If neither matches, then the voters MUST present positive ID at the polls the first time voting.

Many voters list both their DL and SSN, so the state checks both. Again, a match on one is enough. If only one is listed, the state can only check one. If neither is listed, there is an automatic ID requirement.

If the State stopped asking for SSNs (besides being a violation of federal law), this would not make it EASIER for voters, it would make it harder. If there are problems with the federal database so 40% show a false negative, this does not disenfranchise anyone. A false negative does not stop anyone from voting. For the 60% it works for it eliminates the need for ID at the polls.

Your readers might favor universal ID at the polls for everyone, I'm not arguing for or against that. But the headline in yesterday's N&O that the state had violated some law was totally and completely false, and the lead in this post and in today's print edition that the State is going to stop checking SSNs after this election is not correct either. What the state is going to stop doing is checking both numbers if the voter lists both. What the state will do is check the DL number, and if that does not match, then it will check the SSN. If the voter JUST lists the SSN, that will be checked. Why all the fuss from Washington? Because the Social Security Administration is mad that the huge voter registration this year all across the country has strained their computer system.

The idea that matching against a federal database is designed to make it harder to vote by making people show ID at the polls is total malarkey. It is to make it EASIER by making (as allowed by federal law) people who match the federal database to AVOID showing ID.

Re: Hagan criticizes Dole on Social Security

louisdous — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 09:50:48 -0400

Dear Mr. Cooper, You may want to ask the folks in Galveston, Texas that opted out in the late '70s/early 80's. Imagine were they would be now after their homes were washed away if they had to rebuild their lives on a measly government controlled ss check. Those that did not opt out are probably crying and whining to anybody that may listen to have the government bail them out with a few additional pennies of my money, much like you have been when the government's other wonderful program (medicaid) sends you a measley check to cover the costs of nursing home care in one of the eight nursing homes you own. Why not just give the government these nursing homes to run instead of privatizing them? Just wondering...LD

Dole is ineffective, does nothing

Real_Americans_Think — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 22:32:07 -0400

Dole needs to be sent to retirement. she is a do-nothing ineffective senator. The idea of privatizing any portion of social security is absurd. Dole is part of the problem. Vote her out. Send someone who actually lives in North Carolina to be our Senator. Dole spent only 13 days in NC in 2006. That's outrageous. No wonder she is so out of touch and clueless.

Re: Hagan criticizes Dole on Social Security

Right_is_Right — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 16:02:32 -0400

Neither 2042 nor 2049 helps me as a young worker. I think something certainly has to be done to make Social Security more sound. Privitization is the only sensical solution.

Re: Hagan criticizes Dole on Social Security

dahedgehog — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 15:10:45 -0400

But it is not clear what Hagan would do make Social Security more sound.

It's not clear that anything has to be done to make Social Security "more sound." According to the Social Security Trustees' Report (http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/TR08/IV_SRest.html#253691), the bonds in the SS trust fund are sufficient to cover full benefits until 2042.

The Trustee's report is likely overly cautious -- the CBO puts this date at 2049.

Re: Claims Dept: Dole on driver's license vote

rbmartin — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 13:13:39 -0400

Using this as an example:

Is the claim true? No. In 2001, Hagan voted to make it harder for illegal immigrants to get licenses, and in 2006 she voted to make it impossible. It's fair to say that Senate Democrats — Hagan included — could have backed stronger standards, but that's not the same thing as voting to "make it easier."

...the first part: "Is the claim true? No. In 2001, Hagan voted to make it harder for illegal immigrants to get licenses, and in 2006 she voted to make it impossible." ...is basically a neutral statement of fact.

The second part: "It's fair to say that Senate Democrats — Hagan included — could have backed stronger standards, but that's not the same thing as voting to "make it easier." ...is not neutral. It is an editorialization wherein the writer is telling readers how to interpret the facts.

As a reader it is my place to decide whether the proffered facts do or do not support the claim in question. One the one hand, Hagan's record at least technically refutes Dole's claim. On the other hand, it is within reason to feel that failing to come out stronger against licensing illegals is tantamount to making it easier for them. A more graphic example would be if Hagan had voted to require illegals to stand on one foot while applying, thereby making it 'harder' to obtain a NC license. Technically correct, but....

I applaud the intent and efforts of the Claim Dept., but ask they restrict themselves to the facts and leave interpretations of the facts out of it. The N&O is so obviously leftist and liberal (read the recent editorial torpedo against Pat McCrory implying he believes Sheriff Andy Taylor is real) that it's created the need to be scrupulously exacting when purporting to be any sort of bipartisan fact-checker. Bias isn't always overt and purposely committed. Bias may be injected merely by being selective about whose and which claims are chosen for review. Also, the biased are typically blinded to their own bias as a requisite of being biased.

Re: Claims Dept: Dole on driver's license vote

uncgop — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 09:54:36 -0400

Ryan:

I fully understand your position as the bearer of good and bad news and your attempts to spur conversation. By no means was my previous post an attack on you, I was merely stating that I recognize where the anger is coming from.

Let me be clear

ryanteaguebeckwith — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 09:31:53 -0400

I think you're misunderstanding the point of the fact-check.

I'm not defending the 2001 measure or attacking it. Whether or not the bill went far enough or too far is a political decision that readers — and eventually voters — can decide.

But the taxpayer ID number provision was more of a requirement than the state had before. (Again, whether taxpayer ID numbers should be used, etc., etc., is for you guys to debate.)

The Claims Dept. item simply states that the measure did not, in fact, make it easier for illegal immigrants to get licenses than it was before.

You are free to argue that it did not make it tough enough, had ulterior political motives, dodged the real issue, ad infinitum.

But as a U.S. senator once said, "We are all entitled to our own opinions. None of us are entitled to our own facts."

— RTB

E-mail from Hagan's campaign

ryanteaguebeckwith — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 09:21:00 -0400

For the record, I've only received one e-mail from the Hagan campaign on her immigration record.

From press secretary Dave Hoffman on June 2 (quoted here):

2006: Hagan Voted For A Bill To Prevent Illegal Immigrants From Obtaining Drivers’ Licenses. In July 2006, the Associated Press reported that the North Carolina General Assembly had adopted a provision that would require all applicants for a driver’s license present proof of legal presence through either a Social Security number or a valid visa issued by the Department of Homeland Security. An Individual Taxpayer Identification Number issued by the IRS would no longer be considered a valid form of identification. The provision was included in a larger bill addressing other technical changes to the General Statutes as recommended by the General Statutes Commission. [Raleigh Associated Press, 7/27/06; SB 602, Vote 1585, 7/26/06, passed 41-6]

2007: Budget Included Immigration Training For Sheriffs. In 2007, the North Carolina State budget included $750,000 to train sheriffs’ offices on illegal immigration. [Asheville Citizen-Times, 8/1/07]

2007: Hagan Voted To Study Immigrants’ Impact. In 2007, Hagan voted to study the impacts of illegal immigrants on the state’s health care, education, social services and criminal justice systems, as well as the state’s economy. [S 1256, Vote 1219, 8/1/07]

Note that he does not mention the 2001 bill.

— RTB

Re: Claims Dept: Dole on driver's license vote

ryanteaguebeckwith — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 09:14:59 -0400

The point of a fact-check is to make a determination. Trust me, it's the least pleasant part of this job. Anyway, I wrote an equally strong fact-check on Hagan's claim on unfunded mandates, but apparently that doesn't count with you guys.

— RTB

Re: Claims Dept: Dole on driver's license vote

uncgop — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 09:08:52 -0400

I have just been watching this conversation heat up and so I wanted to throw my two cents in the ring. First of all, because you are on facebook in someone's group, does not mean you are there to support them. I am apart of Obama's website and facebook, but that is because I like to know what pandering they are disiminating on a particular day.

That quote right there makes it clear that there is a little partiality. Present the facts and let the public decide. When it all is said and done, Hagan simply did not take a leadership role and back tougher requirements, if she truly felt them necessary. Further supporting the anger towards RTB, because she is just a pawn with no backbone.

Re: Ryan- Don't be the Hagan Spin Machine's Schill do some homew

John_Burns — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 18:09:43 -0400

Yeah, good thing we decided to do something about all those Hispanic hijackers on 9-11...

psst... that's sarcasm, if "your" concerned about it.

Dome's Facebook profile

ryanteaguebeckwith — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 10:52:49 -0400

Dome has a longtime policy of friending anyone who asks us on Facebook. We also join any N.C.-related political group we see on the social networking site.

It would be a mistake to try to guess our political leanings from what has been an essentially random process.

Anyway, if you look closer, you'll see that we're listed as fans of both McCrory and Perdue, Hagan and Dole, etc. etc.

— RTB