Trauner, Lummis camps debate Social Security

2008-10-10T00:00:00Z Trauner, Lummis camps debate Social SecurityThe Associated Press The Associated Press
October 10, 2008 12:00 am  • 

CHEYENNE - In the heated race for Wyoming's U.S. House seat, the campaigns of Democrat Gary Trauner and Republican Cynthia Lummis traded barbs Friday over Lummis' statements about privatizing Social Security.

Trauner said the economic crisis and plunging stock markets illustrate why a Lummis proposal to privatize Social Security would risk Americans' ability to retire with financial security. The Lummis campaign countered that Trauner is misrepresenting Lummis' views on fixing Social Security.

Trauner said he supports maintaining and strengthening Social Security, which is predicted to become insolvent in coming decades. He called Lummis "out of touch" for her earlier assertion that many Americans view Social Security benefits as their sole retirement income.

"I don't know of any working people who don't save because they think that Social Security may be all they need," Trauner said. "However, in light of the stock market falling over 30 percent this year alone, it may be all that stands between them and a loss of dignity."

Tucker Fagan, campaign manager for the Lummis campaign, said Trauner has been twisting Lummis' position - in broadcast ads, mailings and phone calls - to scare people.

"This is taking something which is a philosophical argument and taking it and spinning it and saying, hey, I'm going to scare the people with this comment," Fagan said.

Fagan said Lummis' proposal wouldn't impact people currently paying into or receiving benefits from Social Security. Rather, Lummis believes the Social Security system is systematically flawed and needs to be studied for long-term solutions, Fagan said.

Lummis has said that a proposal to fix Social Security would be to privatize the program for people who have not yet entered the work force or who were born after a certain date.

Fagan said Friday that any government program allowing privatized accounts as part of Social Security would have to be studied to determine how much of a person's account could be privatized without jeopardizing the system.

"The idea of some privatization is to say, you know we have some pretty smart people in the United States and if you would choose to invest a part of that yourself you could do that," Fagan said.

For his part, Trauner said the government should study raising the cap from the $100,000 income limit on which Social Security taxes are levied. Currently, the program taxes income up to $100,000. Raising the cap would produce more money for Social Security.

Lummis has also suggested raising the retirement age for Social Security benefits. Trauner said he would only look at that option as a "last resort." Currently, normal retirement age for people born before 1938 is 65 and for people born after 1959 is 67.

"With some very minor tweaks and adjustments, Social Security will be there for me, for my kids and for future generations," Trauner said. "We just need the political will to stand up and do that."

Also Friday, Lummis announced that she had picked up endorsements from four fellow Republicans: Secretary of State Max Maxfied, State Auditor Rita Meyer, State Treasurer Joe Meyer and Superintendent of Public Instruction Jim McBride.

Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

No Comments Posted.

Untitled Document

Civil Dialogue

We provide this community forum for readers to exchange ideas and opinions on the news of the day. Passionate views, pointed criticism and critical thinking are welcome. Name-calling, crude language and personal abuse are not welcome. Moderators will monitor comments with an eye toward maintaining a high level of civility in this forum. Our comment policy explains the rules of the road for registered commenters.

If your comment was not approved, perhaps...

  1. You called someone an idiot, a racist, a dope, a moron, etc. Please, no name-calling or profanity (or veiled profanity -- #$%^&*).

  2. You rambled, failed to stay on topic or exhibited troll-like behavior intended to hijack the discussion at hand.

  3. YOU SHOUTED YOUR COMMENT IN ALL CAPS. This is hard to read and annoys readers.

  4. You have issues with a business. Have a bad meal? Feel you were overcharged at the store? New car is a lemon? Contact the business directly with your customer service concerns.

  5. You believe the newspaper's coverage is unfair. This is a forum for community discussion, and we'd rather address your concerns directly. It would be better to write the editors at, or call Editor Mandy Burton at 307-266-0545.

  6. You included an e-mail address or phone number, pretended to be someone you aren't, or offered a comment that makes no sense.

  7. You accused someone of a crime, or assigned guilt or punishment to someone suspected of a crime.

  8. Your comment is in really poor taste.

Add Comment
You must Login to comment.

Click here to get an account it's free and quick