Well, the returns are in for the mid-August campaign finance reports*, and the race for Governor is — even more than before — a settled issue. Peter Shumlin’s gonna whomp Randy Brock.

*Covering July 16-August 15.

The official reporting form has a summary page including total donations and expenditures, but it does not have a line for “total cash on hand.”

So Peter Shumlin’s campaign added a cover sheet to its report, just so nobody missed the big news. Which was right in the middle of the page, off by itself, in bold print:

Cash on Hand: $769,026.61

Holy bleepin’ shit. That’s more cash on hand than all the other statewide (non-federal) candidates COMBINED. That’s three times as much cash on hand as Shumlin’s opponent, Randy Brock.

That completely unneccessary cover sheet: just a subtle crotch-grab by the Shumlin team. Might as well have put a banner across the page: GIVE IT UP, RANDY.

Other top headlines from today’s filings: Randy Brock’s fundraising falters. TJ Donovan outraises — and outspends — Bill Sorrell. Doug Hoffer and Wendy Wilton pick up the pace, but still trail their respective opponents. And, as reported earlier, meager reports from Jack McMullen and Cass Gekas. (I didn’t bother getting reports for Jim Condos, who doesn’t have a Republican opponent, or for US House or Senate.)

Now, the rest of the story…  

Shumlin trounces Brock.  Peter Shumlin raised $160,000 in the past month, for a campaign total of $836,000. When you add in a 2010 surplus of $26,000, you get Shumlin’s extremely impressive cash-on-hand total.

It also helps that Shumlin is spending a lot less money than Brock. He’s reported campaign expenditures of $93,000 so far, including $16,000 in the past month.

Brock raised only $55,000 in the past month — Pundit Laureate Eric Davis had opined that Brock had to raise at least $100,000 to stay competitive — and spent $66,000. (Darcie Johnston’s making a very good living off the dying carcass of Brock for Governor; she got two checks for $8,000 apiece in the last month, to add to the $48,000 she “earned” before July 16. Brock also wrots lots of hefty checks to his out-of-state consultants.)

Looking at the Brock campaign overall, it’s spent $348,000 and raised $581,000 — but that figure includes $300,000 in loans from Brock to his own campaign. In other words, if it wasn’t for the loans, his campaign would be $70,000 in the hole. He didn’t make any additional loans in the past month; perhaps even he can see the writing on the wall.

TJ outdoes Sorrell. In the past month, Attorney General Bill Sorrell raised $22,000, for a total of $105,000. Challenger TJ Donovan raised $35,000 this time, for a total of $164,000. Donovan’s also outspending Sorrell by quite a bit; $71,000 this period and $111,000 so far, compared to Sorrell’s $20,000 this period and $58,000 overall. In terms of cash on hand, Donovan has a little more than Sorrell, roughly %53,000 to $47,000.

The spending totals reflect a challenger who’s mounted a serious effort to take down the incumbent, and an incumbent who might be a bit… shall we say, comfortable? Complacent? Sorrell’s doing okay in fundraising, but he only spent $20,000 in a month with the primary less than two weeks away. That doesn’t exactly seem like an all-out effort.

As reported earlier, Republican AG candidate Jack McMullen had another dismal haul, taking in less than $20,000 — virtually all of it in big checks from a handful of out-of-state donors. He raised less than $300 within Vermont. (Not counting a personal loan of $3500.)

Illuzzi outraises Hoffer. Technically, Republican Auditor candidate Vince Illuzzi has yet to file his August 15 report; he couldn’t get to the Secretary of State’s office on time, and instead e-mailed it in. To be official, it must be delivered in person. But here’s what the unofficial version says: $19,000 in fundraising in this period, bringing the total to $51,000. Expenditures of $76,000, and total spending of $10,000.

Dem/Prog Doug Hoffer is making slow progress, reporting fundraising of $17,000 this time and a campaign total of $27,000. He’s spent a total of $8,400. And he’s loaned his own campaign $10,000. (Illuzzi had previously loaned his campaign $25,000.) So, Hoffer trails Illuzzi in the money race — but at least he remains in Vince’s rear-view mirror.

Which is more than can be said for Wendy Wilton’s effort to unseat Beth Pearce. Republican Wilton took in $17,000 this period, giving her a grand total of $33,000 in donations. She spent $8,000 in the past month, and $13,000 in the campaign to date.

Pearce raised less than Wilton this time around — her total was $12,000 — but she continues to hold a commanding lead in campaign cash. Pearce has raised a total of $95,000. She’s spent $50,000 so far, but still has a substantial edge in cash on hand. Also, looking at Pearce’s donor list, most of her contributions were in the $100-500 range, and virtually none of her donors has reached the $2,000 individual maximum — meaning she has lots of room to raise more money if she needs to.

Finally, as I reported earlier, Phil Scott is way ahead of Cass Gekas in the money race. Scott raised $25,000 in the past month for a campaign total of $52,000, while Gekas raised only about $7,500 this period for a meager total of $13,000.

To be fair, Gekas does have a big kickoff event this week. And she told the Vermont Press Bureau that she’s received pledges worth an additional $27,000. Still, she remains a badly underfunded candidate in a race against a very popular incumbent. Maybe Shumlin can let her dig around in his sofa cushions for spare change.

That’s about it from me. Additional comments are welcome below.  

This came into my email box today from the Vermont AFL-CIO (note that I am a member of the National Writers Union).  Seems that the AG primary is coming down to out-of-state super PAC money for Sorrell, vs the grassroots support from local labor for Donovan.  

FRIENDS, PLEASE JOIN US FOR A LABOR RALLY IN SUPPORT OF TJ DONOVAN FOR ATTTORNEY GENERAL

WHEN: 5Pm, Tuesday, August 21

WHERE: Barre Labor Hall (46 Granite Street Barre,VT 05641)

On August 9, the floodgate of Super PAC money in Vermont politics was opened. A Washington, D.C. Super PAC spent $100,000 on ads on behalf of Attorney General Bill Sorrell. That’s not the Vermont way.

On August 21, the working people from across Vermont will come together to stand up for their rights and make their voices heard in spite of the opposition from out of state corporations. By electing TJ Donovan in the Democratic primary on August 28, we’ll show the rest of the country that in Vermont, labor wins elections, not Super PACS. Join us for a GOTV Rally at the Barre Labor Hall on August 21st at 5PM. Working and middle class Vermonters have flocked to TJ’s campaign because they want an Attorney General that will stand up for the rights of workers and use that office to address their concerns.

Now correct me if I am wrong, but didn’t Mr. Sorrell argue and lose Vermont’s campaign finance law before the federal court?  And did he not just announce that he was not going to contest unlimited super PAC funding in this year’s Vermont election?  And now, low and behold, he gets a $100,000 check from Washington DC? Is it just me (and the Vermont AFL-CIO, VSEA, NEA, VPAA, etc.) Or does this have a very sordid appearance?

Based on the above as well as on Sorrell’s history of fighting against Abenaki recognition, against instant run off voting, and on his recent high profile losses (especially concerning VY), I think Sorrell is in big trouble.  Anyone want to venture an election prediction?

 

All the polls I have seen seem to indicate that somewhere between 70% to 90% of Vermonters support increased development of our wind resources.  Of course that general support does not mean that a great majority of Vermonters support each and every specific project. Logically speaking, it is safe to assume that some projects, depending on the specifics concerning environmental impact, quality local job creation, etc., may be good and others not so good.  That said, below is a press release sent out today from REV which highlights one Northeast Kingdom community’s support for a new wind farm project in their back yard.

Northeast Kingdom communities vote in favor of wind projects

NEWS RELEASE

Aug. 15, 2012

Media Contact:

Gabrielle Stebbins

Executive Director

Renewable Energy Vermont

gabrielle@revermont.org

(802) 229-0099

United Towns & Gores of Essex County (15 August 2012)- United Towns and Gores have reaffirmed Vermonters’ commitment to renewable energy projects at their annual meeting. The town voted twenty-four to sixteen to support wind projects. The vote was prompted by the proposal to put in meteorological towers to measure wind speeds for the Seneca Mountain Wind project. Jack Kenworthy of Seneca Mountain Wind was “heartened by the community’s willingness to learn more about our project and the benefits it can bring to the community. We look forward to sharing our plans as we develop them. Seneca Mountain Wind is dedicated to working closely with host communities throughout the project development phase and to listen to concerns and feedback that we receive in that process.” This vote supports the WCAX polls showing that seventy percent of Vermont citizens support wind projects along ridgelines.

“This vote affirms the continued broad support by the vast majority of Vermonters to see the on-going development of clean energy in our state – for all the many benefits clean energy provides, from mitigating climate change, developing job opportunities up and down the supply chain, to increasing our energy security and independence, while offering local host towns additional revenue streams in tight fiscal times”, stated Gabrielle Stebbins, Executive Director of Renewable Energy Vermont, the state trade association for clean energy in Vermont. “It’s truly exciting that by the end of 2012, four Vermont wind farms will provide 120 Megawatts of capacity, supplying enough power for 46,000 homes through contracts with our local utilities. This is another step closer to Vermont meeting the goals laid out in its comprehensive energy plan.” In addition to the energy supplied to Vermonters, these projects also contribute over one million dollars annually to the state education fund and add another 1.4 million in tax revenues to the host communities.

This vote comes after a series of positive developments for wind energy over the last few weeks. At their summit in Las Vegas, the American Wind Energy Association announced that there are now fifty gigawatts of installed capacity for wind in the US. Highlighting that capacity is the recent announcement that wind provided up to fifty-seven percent of Colorado electricity recently.

To learn more and become a supporter of Vermont Windprojects, sign up on for the Friends of Vermont Wind at www.windworksvt.org.

REV is a nonprofit, nonpartisan trade associationrepresenting nearly 300 businesses, individuals, colleges and others committedto reducing our reliance on fossil fuels and expanding the availability ofrenewable sources of energy in Vermont. REV works as the only advocacyorganization dedicated solely to advancing renewable energy and efficiency inthe state. Learn more at www.revermont.org

On this deadline for campaign finance reports, I swung by the Secretary of State’s office around 1:30 to pick up any filings that had been turned in before the last minute.

The answer: not very many, and none of the biggies. No gubernatorial candidates, nothing from the two Dems running for AG. Tune in later today for an update. Here’s what I’ve got so far…

No good news for Jack “Six Teats” McMullen, the two-time loser who’s the Republican candidate for AG. After raising nothing through July 15, he managed to pull in $19,000 in the past month. Virtually all of it was in large donations, and all of those were from out of state. Yep, he may have lived in Vermont for a while now, but he’s still a political carpetbagger; no Vermonters are giving his campaign any money. He lists a total of 13 donors; there were seven max gifts of $2,000, and four more of $1,000. He reported a total of $220 in “donations of $100 or less.”

Now, there’s a broad-based candidacy.

If that’s not sad enough, McMullen also managed to spend nearly $10,000 in the past month, blowing more than half of his campaign kitty at a time when the Freeploid characterizes him as “waiting in the wings” for the result of the August 28 Democratic primary. He’s burning through a lot of cash for a candidate who’s just waiting around.

We can all have a good cackle about that. But here’s something that’s got me upset: Democratic Lt-Gov candidate Cassandra Gekas remains drastically underfunded.  

In the past month, Gekas raised a paltry $7,500 and spent over $6,000, leaving her very little money on hand. Her total fundraising to date is only $13,000. That’s entirely inadequate to take on incumbent Republican Phil Scott.

(He raised a solid $25,000 this time around, for a grand total of $52,000 overall. Minus expenditures, he still has over $30,000 on hand.)

As you may remember, Gekas is a first-time candidate who was reportedly recruited by Governor Shumlin. If so, I have to say that the Governor and the Party have completely failed to provide any tangible support for her candidacy. It’s looking like she’s nothing more than a sacrificial lamb — a placeholder, so the Dems could avoid the embarrassment of an empty slot on their ticket. I hope she at least gets a good job in the Administration after she loses in November.

If that seems harsh, well, the Dems can tell me how I’m wrong. Or better yet, show me — by pouring some resources into the Gekas campaign, and giving her at least a fighting chance.  

I realize that she has yet to hold her “campaign kickoff” — that’s happening tomorrow in Burlington — but it’s awfully late in the game for someone who faces a difficult, uphill struggle against the most popular Republican in the state.

The only other campaign report I have so far is from Democratic Treasurer Beth Pearce. She raised $11,540 in the past month, for an overall total of $95,000. The vast majority of her donations were between $100 and $500, and virtually all of her donors have substantial room for additional gifts under the individual limit of $2,000.

Which I’m sure they will provide, if it becomes necessary. Her Republican opponent, Wendy Wilton, reported a very low total in mid-July; as of 1:30, she had yet to submit her mid-August report.  

Thanks to Nanuq for bringing to my attention the plight of Zizeeria maha butterflies in Japan.  These delicate creatures have the distinction of being the first animal population documented as suffering not just immediate affects from Fukushima radiation, but also proving that genetic mutations having resulted.

By comparing mutations found on the butterflies collected from the different sites, the team found that areas with greater amounts of radiation in the environment were home to butterflies with much smaller wings and irregularly developed eyes.

Apparently, the discovery came as something of a surprise to scientists.  According to Joji Otaki of the University of the Ryukyus, Okinawa, who performed the genetic studies,

“It has been (previously) believed that insects are very resistant to radiation,”

Investigative procedures involved collection of live specimens from various sites throughout Japan; comparisons recorded of those specimens; and then subsequent generations being bred in controlled environments over a thousand miles form the site of the Fukushima disaster.  Those subsequent generations were examined for abnormalities, and the changes recorded.

Mr. Otaki and his team observed a worsening of mutations, including new anomalies not observed in the first generation, in later generations of the butterflies bred under lab conditions

A second collection of specimens from the wild was made six months after the first. Those too were examined and abnormalities documented.

It was found that those that remained to feed and breed in the radiation-laced wild fared even worse than their lab raised brethren; averaging double the anomalies of the controlled specimens.

Mr. Otaki’s team concluded that distributions of radiation over feeding ranges meant that the butterflies in the wild kept increasing their exposure with every meal, and the genetic impact grew as a result.

No doubt this is just the tip of the ecological iceberg from Fukushima; but don’t be surprised if you don’t hear a lot about it.  The nuclear fraternity is very good at closing ranks around damaging data and performing exorcisms to banish bad tidings from the news cycle.  Don’t forget that amazing PBS’s “Nature” whitewash, “Radioactive Wolves of Chernobyl!”

Well, as I read this little number about an upcoming fundraiser in Woodstock featuring US Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-Teaville), I was all set to call a penalty on the Vermont Democratic Party: Five yards, excessive complaining.

But then I read on, and realized that once again, the Dems had once again been out-excessed by VTGOP chair Jack Lindley. Five yards, excessive complaining, plus fifteen yards, repeating a discredited lie.

Let’s start with the Dems, who complained that Ayotte is just too extreme to be allowed into our fair state. C’mon, now. I could see this sort of complaining about Paul LePage and Allen West, who are radical conservatives and also complete a$$holes. Ayotte’s just not in their league.  

But then comes Jack Lindley’s counter-offensive, which begins by accusing Democrats of “swinging for the gutter,” a mixed metaphor if ever I heard one. And then he repeats his howler, discredited by yours truly, that “his party made no such comments when President Obama visited Vermont in March.”

Oh yeah, Jack? I refer you (once again) to your own party website, where you greeted Obama’s visit with the following uncivil comments:  

“It’s a huge deal,” Vermont Democratic Party Chairman Jake Perkinson, said of the president’s visit.

“Yes, it’s a huge deal,” said Vermont GOP Chair Jack Lindley. “It’s a huge deal for Vermont taxpayers, who are still reeling from the cost of the worst flooding in the past 100 years; Vermonters who are still reeling from the cost of Obamacare and the skyrocketing cost of gasoline and heating oil. And for Vermonters who are also going to be faced with a projected 18% increase in the cost of health care under the Governor’s plan for the health care exchange and an additional rate increase in their electric bill from the Governor’s proposed renewable energy bill.”

Said Lindley, “I had hoped the President would take time to meet some of those suffering as a result of his policies. Unfortunately, he’ll be spending most of his time raising money. And according to WCAX, it appears he’ll be sticking Vermont taxpayers with the tab for state and local police and traffic detail. WCAX reports that ‘police officers are expected to be stationed at every intersection along the route – a special detail that’s going to require dozens of officers from surrounding towns.’ And South Burlington Police Chief Trevor Whipple says he expects the cost to be ‘community borne.’ ”

“The President says he expects to raise and spend one billion on his reelection campaign,” said Lindley. “The least he could do is reimburse Vermont’s taxpayers for the cost of his fundraising visit, rather than ask the people of cash strapped Vermont to subsidize the cost of his campaign. Let us hope that our esteemed Governor, who is still having trouble balancing the budget, will see fit to speak up on behalf of Vermont’s taxpayers and ask the President for reimbursement.”

Yeah, I don’t think Jack Lindley should be lecturing anyone about civility. (And, as I pointed out previously, the bit about Obama saying he will raise a billion bucks? Fox News fabrication. Obama never said it.) He certainly shouldn’t be telling lies that can be easily discredited by visiting his own party’s website.

(Maybe this time, some enterprising reporter will take the time to do so, and call Lindley on his bullshit.)

In the future, Jack, just STFU about civility to visiting politicos. You’re making a fool of yourself.  

Update:Governor Shumlin will attend candidate Cassandra Gekas’ Lt. Governor campaign kick-off.

Check here for more http://www.facebook.com/Gekas2012

Democratic candidate for Lt. Governor Cassandra Gekas will formally kick off her campaign this Thursday in Burlington. Gekas stepped forward to challenge Lt. Governor Phil Scott when it looked like he would just drive across the finish line to his second term unopposed. Speaking to the Bennington Banner last week Gekas said this about why she entered the race:

"For me, this is about issues and Vermonters’ values. It’s true that our current lieutenant governor is a nice guy and has a lot solid friendships across the state, but that’s different from being a policy leader and an elected official.”

The Burlington kick off at Union Station will feature her campaign treasurer Jerry Greenfield of Ben and Jerry’s as host and among others in attendance will be Senate President Pro Tem John Campbell and State Senator Hinda Miller who is leaving the legislature. It appears that the governor will not be there . A glance at Governor Peter Shumlin’s public schedule for the day of the rally (August 16) notes only that it is state holiday and shows no appointments or appearences for that day.

In between the lines a VtDigger article may hint diplomatically at why the governor could be taking Bennington Battle Day off from campaigning.

Gov. Peter Shumlin, who encouraged Gekas to run against popular incumbent Republican Phil Scott, will endorse her race. Scott is close to the governor, and he participates in Shumlin’s Cabinet meetings. At a press conference in July, the governor said he would back all Democratic contenders in statewide races, including Gekas and Doug Hoffer, the Democrat running for state auditor.

However, it is good to read about Senators Miller and Campbell stepping up and giving a helping hand to a fellow Democratic candidate. Earlier an image and flattering quote from the Senate President Pro Tem John Campbell (D-Windsor) had graced Lt.Governor Scott’s facebook re-election campaign page. And Miller was one of several Democrats to attend a fund raiser for Republican candidate for State Auditor Vince Illuzzi who is running against Democratic candidate Doug Hoffer.

Now, whether this showing up would’ve happened without blog and press attention to the prior incidents of campaign-and-fundraising-related cross-party “amity” is anyone’s guess. And whether their presence at Thursday’s Democratic Lt. Governor’s campaign kick-off event amounts to anything more than face-saving window-dressing won’t become clear, even in the best crystal balls, until after the next round of campaign finance reports.

Hot off the wire:

A pastor from Virginia was convicted Tuesday of helping a woman flee the country three years ago, when she was on the brink of having to turn custody of her young daughter over to the woman who was once her partner in a Vermont civil union.

…[Kenneth] Miller, 46, of Stuarts Draft, Va., was charged with aiding in international kidnapping for helping Lisa Miller and her daughter, Isabella, leave the country in September 2009, a month after a judge indicated he would turn custody of the girl over to Janet Jenkins, of Fair Haven, Vt., if she continued to defy a series of visitation orders.

Sentencing will happen later, and Miller is free until then. Also today, Jenkins filed a civil suit against Kenneth Miller, Lisa Miller (no relation) and a Virginia man who allegedly aided in her escape.

So, a measure of justice is done. Unfortunately, Lisa Miller and Isabella are still at large — believed to be in Nicaragua, which is not a signer of an international treaty on child abductions. Jenkins will continue to be robbed of her relationship with her daughter.

The Rev., I’m sure, would call it the Christian thing to do.  

I feel moved to write a companion piece to Bring on the turbines by jvwalt  posted on the GMD on 11-August-2012.  First I’ll tell you that I live in Windham and we are being targeted for a multi-wind turbine enterprise for the second time. I’m also a member of Windham’s selectboard and own property abutting the proposed site. I also have a wind turbine and solar panels and was a passive supporter of the initial effort that was to be sited on Glebe Mountain just west of my house. I would have seen and heard those more than just about anyone, but felt that I’d take one for the team and not oppose the project. The project was canceled but I maintained an interest in wind turbines since I had one. I kept track of how much power mine generated and also became a better observer of wind. The turbine does give problems from time to time (lightening stuck once and iced up twice) and has been a disappointment as to the amount of electricity produced. Right now I estimate that in only 59 more years it will have paid for itself. I’m a supporter of renewable energy, but my own personal experience with wind in Windham is disappointing.

Now Windham is being targeted for a second time on a different site. The proposed site this time is attractive to the wind developer (Iberdrola) for two main reasons: 1. The proposed site is owned by one company, Meadowsend Timber Mgt, and 2. there is a power transmission line nearby.  The Town of Windham is opposed to the project for several reasons and has written its town plan with language that specifically prohibits such an enterprise. Nonetheless Iberdrola and Meadowsend have filed with the Public Service Board for a Certificate of Public Good that authorizes them to erect three measuring towers and Iberdrola says they will have enough data to make a decision in early spring. Measuring the wind for so short a time and only during the windiest months will not provide reliable data. Existing wind resources maps produced by Northeast wind1 for the Vermont Department of Public Service show the proposed area to be of marginal quality. So why would they even investigate the site at all? And gather data for so short a period of time? We believe that the site will only be economically feasible for the duration of the Production Tax Credits which they hope to get. We have no complaint about a company getting PTC’s to get up and going, but we do urge the criteria for receipt of PTC’s be re-written so that locations where wind is economically feasible after the PTC’s end are the only sites eligible. But congress seems to apply the touch of a blacksmith when writing legislation and this piece has set off something akin to a gold rush to get in under the PTC wire. But here in Vermont “We use almost no oil to generate electricity in Vermont, and we have the lowest carbon footprint in the country for our electricity generation…2 ” and we don’t need to guilt-trip ourselves about our carbon footprint. I recommend that everyone go to the Energize Vermont website and read/watch the slide presentation by professor Ben Luce of Lyndon State College. Professor Luce is a wind advocate, but presents sound reasons why wind is is wrong for Vermont.3

Another concern about developing this site is the fact that the entire west and north boundaries of the proposed site in Windham have slopes of greater than 25%4. This is significant because the Saxtons River rises in Windham and passes through some significant wetlands as it consolidates into the actual river which, by the way flows through two flood prone towns; Grafton and Saxtons River. Extensive excavation is required to build the necessary access roads and sites for the turbines. The terrain in Windham is difficult and it will be challenging to manage additional runoff from this site after extensive excavation the project will require. This is steep and rough terrain and managing runoff cannot be done as easily as landscaping an office park. This  terrain is entirely forested, underlain with rock that will necessitate blasting, and it is home to a pretty diverse wildlife population.

Another concern is item number 4 in the Memorandum of Wind Energy Lease Agreement between Meadowsend and Iberdrola (operating under the name of Atlantic Wind  LLC.) That item reads ” Assignment. Atlantic Wind may assign the agreement and/or right in all or any portion of the Property without the consent of Meadowsend.” I just can’t help but think of Vermont Yankee when I read this.

And to end on a positive note I can tell you that Windham is currently forming a community solar project that will require practically no excavation or blasting, has no moving parts, does not make noise, preserves the beauty of Vermont’s ridgelines, does not exclude hunters and snowmobilers from large areas they currently enjoy, will power up 35 average Vermont homes, and will be sited on land that does not contribute to water runoff and seasonal flooding.  We do not contend that one small solar orchard can out-produce a huge wind turbine installation, but a lot of smaller ones can make a substantial contribution with a lot less damage to our state.

1 http://www.northeastwind.com

2 http://vtdigger.org/2011/08/16…

3 http://www.slideshare.net/luka…

4   http://www.windhamregional.org…

In the 77 years since President Franklin Roosevelt signed Social Security into law on August 14, 1935, the retirement program has been one of the nation’s most successful anti-poverty programs. Before Social Security existed, about half of America’s senior citizens lived in poverty. Today, less than 10 percent live in poverty.

Today, Social Security not only provides retirement security but also enables millions of people with disabilities and widows, widowers and children to live in dignity and security.  

In these highly-volatile economic times, when millions of Americans lost their life savings in the 2008 Wall Street crash, it is important to remember that since its inception, through good economic times and bad, Social Security has paid every penny owed to every eligible beneficiary.

Despite Wall Street and right-wing misinformation Social Security, which is funded by the payroll tax, does not contribute to the deficit. In fact, the Social Security Trust Fund today, according to the Social Security Administration, has a $2.7 trillion surplus and can pay 100 percent of all benefits owed to every eligible American for the next 21 years. Further, unlike the huge commissions paid out to Wall Street firms, Social Security is run with very modest administrative costs.

Despite Social Security’s popularity and overwhelming success, we are now in the midst of a fierce and well-financed attack against Social Security. Pete Peterson, the Wall Street billionaire, has pledged $1 billion of his resources to cut Social Security and other programs of enormous importance to the American people. Other billionaires and Wall Street representatives are also working hard to weaken or destroy Social Security and endanger the well-being of millions of Americans. We must not allow their effort to succeed.

Let us never forget that the current deficit of $1 trillion was primarily caused by two unpaid-for wars and tax breaks for the rich. These policies were strongly supported by “deficit hawks.” The deficit is also related to a major decline in revenue as a result of the Wall Street-created recession. The deficit is a serious issue, but we must not move toward deficit reduction on the backs of the elderly, the children, the sick and the poor. This would not only be immoral, it is bad economic policy. At a time when the wealthiest people in this country are doing phenomenally well and their effective tax rate is the lowest in decades, the top 1 percent must begin paying their fair share of taxes. At a time when large corporations are enjoying record-breaking profits, we have got to eliminate the huge corporate loopholes which result in a massive loss of federal revenue. At a time when we have tripled military spending since 1997, we must take a hard look at a bloated and wasteful Defense Department.  

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan has been a proponent of privatizing the retirement program by putting seniors’ savings into risky Wall Street investments. Even before tapping Ryan as his running mate, Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney said he wants to begin the process of privatizing Social Security. He also would gradually increase the retirement age to 68 or 69. And he favors slowing the growth of benefits for persons with “higher incomes.” Under a plan floated by Romney’s allies on Capitol Hill – Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) – someone making about $45,000 a year today who retires in 2050 would receive 32 percent less in annual Social Security benefits than under the current formula. By that definition, the top 60 percent of all wage earners would be considered “higher income.”

President Barack Obama, meanwhile, was a staunch defender of Social Security in his 2008 campaign. So far this year, however, Obama has refused to stand behind his four-year-old opposition to cuts. In fact, the president has signaled that he may be open to lowering benefits by changing how they are calculated. In my view, it is long past time that the president told the American people in no uncertain terms, as he did in 2008, that he will not cut Social Security on his watch.

To keep Social Security’s finances sound in the future I have introduced legislation – identical to a proposal that Obama advocated in 2008 – to apply the payroll tax on incomes above $250,000 a year. Under current law, only earnings up to $110,100 are taxed. The Center for Economic Policy and Research has estimated that applying the Social Security payroll tax on income above $250,000 would only impact the wealthiest 1.4 percent of wage earners.  

Those who want to cut Social Security benefits are looking at a number of proposals. One of the most talked ideas is moving toward a so-called “chained-CPI,” which would not only impact seniors, but also military retirees and those who receive benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs.  The “chained-CPI” approach changes how the Consumer Price Index is calculated, so that a person 65 years old today would earn $560 a year less in Social Security benefits once they turn 75. Benefits would be cut by nearly $1,000 a year once they turn 85.  Instead, I have proposed legislation to base Social Security cost-of-living adjustments on a Consumer Price Index for the Elderly, a measure that would increase benefits because it would take into account the real-life impact of rising health care costs and prescription drug expenses paid by seniors.

While we often take Social Security for granted, we must not forget that Social Security today is providing dignity and security to tens of millions of Americans. It is a program that is working and working well. We must stand up today on the 77th anniversary of this enormously important program.  We must pledge to continue the fight against the right-wing Republicans, some Democrats and their wealthy backers who want to destroy the program.