Did The DCCC Muck Up Jim Graves' Run In Minnesota... Again?

If you want to know how "Minnesota nice" sounds, call Jim Graves. He picked up the phone yesterday morning with the warmest, friendliest of greetings... and immediately said he isn't talking to the press until July first and suggested we talk about my upcoming trip to Tuscany instead. He suggested I spend time in Siena, long one of my favorite small European cities. As for questions around his dropping out of the congressional race in MN-06... not a peep, although he did follow up a few minutes later by sending this copy of the Bill Maher "the lights are a little bit dimmer in Crazy Town" video about Bachmann's withdrawal. Like me, Bill Maher will never be cited as an example of Minnesota Nice: "Michele Bachmann is out... still no word on her husband Marcus."

I think Jim likes Maher's interpretation of his leaving the field after vanquishing Bachmann. "Mission accomplished." But that wasn't his first reponse to Bachmann dropping out.

The morning that Bachmann suddenly announced she wouldn't seek reelection, Graves still seemed very interested in making the career leap from hotelier to congressman.

"I never ran against her. I ran for the people," Graves told KARE Wednesday morning.

He had been up late the night before watching the Minnesota Twins 14-inning game against the Milwaukee Brewers on TV, assuming he could sleep in for a change. His phone started ringing with media requests before 5:00 a.m.

The next day Graves apparently had a change of heart. He told reporter Eric Black of MinnPost that he was suspending his campaign for Congress. And furthermore, according to Black's MinnPost article, he would not be talking the other media about it.

"I think he then talked to some advisers, probably got some phone calls, talked to some of the folks he was expecting to get some campaign contributions from," Jacobs said.

He theorized Graves could no longer rely on national political money aimed at ousting Bachmann because she has voluntarily removed left the ballot. And the hotel executive has often said he had little interest in self-funding a campaign.

Notorious drunk Tom Emmer is running instead. Granted, it would be hard to get further right along the political spectrum than Bachmann, but ex-state legislator Emmer, currently working as a Hate Talk Radio host, is certainly not to her left... on anything. He's probably best known outside of Minnesota as the guy who Target had to apologize about contributing campaign funds to after Emmer's deranged homophobic mania became a campaign issue. (Target was probably so enamored of Emmer because one of the planks of his campaign platform was to lower the minimum wage.)

“I’m running for Congress to change the culture in Washington and restore Americans’ trust in our government,” Emmer told a group of about 100 supporters gathered Wednesday in his hometown of Delano, a Wright County community in the conservative heart of the 6th District. “Let’s get excessive regulation and taxes out of the way.”

He likely will face competition for the Republican endorsement, which he said he would respect.

State Sen. John Pederson of St. Cloud said he intends to file as a candidate by the end of the month. Former legislator Phil Krinkie, a 16-year legislator who now is president of the Taxpayers Leauge of Minnesota, and state Rep. Matt Dean have said they’re considering entering the contest.

However, Emmer, a former three-term state representative and the GOP nominee who lost to Gov. Mark Dayton in 2010, already has a base to build on.

“From the minute Bachmann got out, Emmer was in very strong position,” said political consultant Michael Brodkorb.

“He has a donor file, access to major fundraisers and the ability to pull together a team quickly," he said. "He lost a very close race for governor. It will make him a disciplined and hungry candidate who will assemble a team that will put him in a position to win.”

Emmer’s advantage as a seasoned campaigner is also his liability.

DFL Party Chair Ken Martin was quick to point that out in a statement: “In Emmer’s unsuccessful 2010 run for governor, he drained Republican Party resources and turned off the party’s major donor community. Many attribute his Ron Paul- and Sarah Palin-backed candidacy to sending Republican and independent votes Tom Horner’s way.”

Regular DWT readers probably don't need to be reminded that I tend to see Steve Israel and the DCCC lurking behind every door. But weeks before Jim Graves dropped out, we talked about how they had sabotaged his run in 2010. They decided to make up for it this year and named him a "Jump Start Candidate," on a par with Israel's most wretched zombie-like conservative candidates like Michael Eggman, Ann Callis, Gwen Graham, Kevin Strouse, et al.

Even before Bachmann dropped out, I started getting an inkling something was wrong. Rumors emanating from the DCCC were undercutting Graves' campaign and his relationships. One of the most corrupt DC organizations, the DCCC wanted to move their own band of incompetent crooks into the campaign so they could start pocketing the big cash the DCCC intended to spend there. With the DCCC, it's always about the rake off for the revolving door staffers. And then, on May 24, the Graves campaign sent out a press release slamming back at the DCCC:

Team Graves Running Independent Campaign

Following rumors reported in the national press from anonymous Washington “Democratic sources” that congressional candidate Jim Graves was pressured to replace his 2012 campaign team with Washington insiders, Graves released the following statement:

“We want to set the record straight. With all due respect to national figures rooting for our success, we are running our own campaign. One of the most valuable rules I have learned in business is ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.’ While Adam Graves, my 2012 campaign manager, decided to turn down the position of campaign manager for 2014 in order to focus on his life’s work as an accomplished philosopher and academic, he remains the closest advisor and strategist to our team. I promoted his deputy campaign manager, Aaron Wells, to manage the 2014 race.”

“Our 2012 team ran an extremely effective and efficient campaign to restore real leadership to our community. We place a high value on loyalty, particularly when folks work tirelessly and with great passion like our 2012 campaign team.”

When the DCCC moves into a campaign, they always try taking over so they can funnel the money into the pockets of their cronies. I can't think of a DCCC campaign where this hasn't happened. And Jim Graves won't be the first.

So, while we're on the subject of MN-06, who will the Democrats put up against Emmer? Thank goodness we haven't heard any stirrings from Elwin Tinklenberg. Tarryl Clark has been telling half the people she meets she's running again. Problem is, she's telling the other half she's not. Another would-be candidate is the anti-Choice mayor-- yes a Democrat-- of Sartell, Joe Perske. And then there's a "secret businessman" who's nosing around and who may or may not run. This one should be safe for the Republicans for another cycle.

Read More

Can The Democrats Retake The House Next Year?

Steve Israel's talking point is "problem solvers." He repeats it like a mantra. But there's something else interesting that he said in his interview with USA Today, in response to a question about what it means that the DCCC spent so lavishly in South Carolina a few weeks ago, only to lose-- and by a wide margin-- to one of the most flawed Republican candidates ever, Mark Sanford. Israel pointed out the SC-01 "is one of the 100 most Republican districts in the country (which isn't exactly true. The PVI is R+11 and it's ranked the 118th most Republican): "I made a decision that we're not going to give up on any district and we're not going to give up on any candidate... It would have been easy for me to walk away, but we'll fight wherever we have a chance." Almost sounds less reptilian... and more like Churchill.

As we mentioned before a few times, last year Israel very much did walk away from Jim Graves in his race against Michele Bachmann. After putting him on the Red to Blue list, Israel decided not to spend any money at all in the district. Bachmann spent $11,946,232 to Graves' $2,279,384 but he came a lot closer to beating her than many of Israel's handpicked candidates where the DCCC spent millions. The 4,197 votes by which Bachmann beat Graves would certainly have been made up had the DCCC spent the kind of money in MN-06 that they spent bolstering losing candidates like Blue Dog Gary McDowell (1,282,979), Blue Dog Brendan Mullen ($483,721), New Dem Julian Schreibman ($2,037,612), Joe Oceguera ($2,649,541) or Pat Kreitlow ($2,069,595) to name a few.

And Graves wasn't the only viable Democratic candidate Israel gave the cold shoulder-- and a cold shoulder often comes with an explicit message to big donors to NOT give contributions. Had Israel been even vaguely competent last go-round, among the Republicans who wouldn't be serving in Congress this session are right-wingers in MUCH bluer districts than Bachmann's. These are Republicans who could have been defeated had Steve Israel just done his job. None comes from an R+11 district like SC-01. In fact none comes from a district above R+4-- and all are powerful GOP House leaders who were actively protected by Steve Israel:

• Darrell Issa (CA)
• John Mica (FL)
• Joe Pitts (PA)
• Scott Garrett (NJ)
• Paul Ryan (WI)
• Buck McKeon (CA)
• Frank Wolf (VA)
• Mike Rogers (MI)
• John Kline (MN)
• Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL)
• Fred Upton (MI)
• Peter King (NY)

And this dozen only includes committee chairs and powerful Members that Israel put off the table, despite their political vulnerabilities and despite, in some cases, excellent Democratic candidates. The good news is that Israel may be lightening up on his protection racket a little and allowing DCCC staffers some leeway in going after vulnerable big shot Republicans. As you can see in the video above, he's very enthusiastic about Jim Graves this time around. There are reasons to believe he is equally enthusiastic about targeting Kline, McKeon and Garrett... at least a small step in the right direction.

There's a new national poll out that shows registered voters prefer to have a Democrat win their district than a Republican. And the margin is significant-- 48% of respondents picked the generic Democrat and 40% picked the generic Republican. But voters don't usually chose between generic candidates. That's why recruitment this year will determine what happens in November 2014.

One of the easiest districts for a Democrat to win would be FL-27, the seat now held by Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. But there is no recruitment; there is anti-recruitment. DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz has made it abundantly clear to Florida Democrats that she will not tolerate anyone credible running against Ileana, who, like her, is owned by the sugar baron Fanjul brothers. Last year Obama's 7 point margin in FL-27 was one of the highest margins of victory in any district held by a Republican Member of Congress. But Wasserman Schultz had the DCCC make sure there would be no viable candidate. The "Democrat" who ran, Manny Yevancey, still hasn't filed an FEC financial disclosure report, which means he raised and spent less than $5,000. His petitions-- which were commercially collected by a firm in Tampa that was paid by "someone else"-- is almost totally signed by folks in Tampa, not in Miami, Coral Gables, Hialeah, Miami Springs, South Miami, Westchester or anywhere else in Ros-Lehtinen's district. The total signatures on his petitions from Miami-Dade- 12. The total from Tampa- 1,147. And the other counties with significant petition numbers were also on the other side of the state, Hillsborough with 656 and Pasco with 502. Very convenient for Wasserman Schultz and Ros-Lehtinen to have a candidate with no income, no roots and no chance-- and old dirty trick that anti-democracy hacks employee.

That all said, there were still 84,899 (37%) voters willing to cast their ballots against Ros-Lehtinen and for an unknown "Democrat" who didn't campaign. Imagine if Steve Israel had ignored Wasserman Schultz' demand that Ros-Lehtinen's seat be off limits and had instead recruited a good candidate and gone after her. So far this year, Wasserman Schultz is guarding the process like a mad dog again and despite several DCCC staffers who would like to target Ros-Lehtinen, there is no movement whatsoever on recruiting a Democrat with a reasonable chance to win. There is no way for the DCCC to win back the House with this kind of leadership. Israel and Wasserman Schultz are the worst examples of why grassroots Democrats hate Inside-the-Beltway Democrats and why so many refuse to even turn up at the polls on election day. When Nancy Pelosi re-appointed Steve Israel to chair the DCCC again this year, she sealed the fate of her party to be in the minority again for the 114th Congress.

Read More

Boehnercare Passes The House

Thursday there were 3 votes leading up to Boehner's 37th attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act and allow the big insurance companies to pick the pockets of every American who needs a doctor once again. This time Boehner gave the dubious honor of introducing the waste-of-time bill to Tea Party queen Michele Bachmann, who also has the dubious honor of being the first Republican incumbent so certain she's going to lose her reelection that she's already started running TV ads in her district. Pelosi was still disparagingly calling the bill Boehnercare.

There were 3 votes leading up to Bachmann's repeal rollcall. First was for ordering the question to agree to bring it up for consideration. It passed 228-193 every Republican + reactionary Blue Dog Jim Matheson of Utah voting YES and every Democrats except reactionary Blue Dog Jim Matheson of Utah voting NO. I should mention at this point that when you see a million e-mails from the DCCC castigating the Republicans for this repeal circus, Matheson is not just on their Frontline list of priority incumbents to be protected, he's been promised between two and three million dollars for his campaign. Matheson has the worst voting record of any Democrat in Congress. His crucial vote score as tracked by ProgressivePunch is 21.74 for the 113th Congress, identical with Georgia sociopath Phil Gingrey. There are a dozen Republicans that vote more frequently for progressive positions this year than Matheon (but Steve Israel isn't spending $2 million to help any of them win reelection).

The second vote, 10 minutes later, was another procedural one to basically just agree to the first one. This one passed 226-192, the change being another DCCC top priority Frontline reactionary Democrat, this time Mike McIntyre of North Carolina, voting with the GOP and Matheson. McIntyre has amassed as nearly a far-right voting record as Matheson. His ProgressivePunch crucial vote score this session is a putrid 40.91, right between Republican Mafioso figure Michael "Mikey Suits" Grimm (R-NY) of Staten Island (42.11) and craven and cowardly Arizona New Dem Ron Barber (39.13). Last November enough discouraged Democrats stayed away from the polls in Matheson's and McIntyre's districts so that they both these mangy Blue Dogs came closer to losing than any other Members of Congress. McIntyre's margin was 654 votes and Mathson's was 768.

Next up was a Motion to Recommit by Lois Capps (D-CA), which would have at least preserved benefits of the Affordable Care Act for women and children by excluding from repeal: (1) elimination of cost sharing for preventive health services, including breast cancer screening, screening for gestational diabetes, and screening for domestic abuse; (2) access to health care coverage for those with preexisting conditions (children and adults); (3) medical loss ratio requirements that ensure consumers receive good value for their premiums; (4) elimination of lifetime and annual limits on benefits; and (5) dependent coverage of adult children until age 26. It failed 190-230. McIntyre hid in the toilet while the vote was taking place, but Matheson was joined by right-wing Democrats Collin Peterson (MN), Dan Lipinski (IL) and Nick Rahall (WV) on the Republican side of the aisle. McIntyre flushed-- though unfortunately not himself-- and came back in time for the final vote on the bill, which passed with all 229 Republicans (+ Matheson and McIntyre) voting YES and 195 Democrats voting NO.

A few minutes after the vote, I spoke with three Democratic challengers running against high-profile Republican backers of the bill. Ohio steel worker Andy Hounshell is taking on Boehner himself-- with no help from the DCCC, of course, who needs all that money to prop up Matheson and McIntyre-- and like many of us, he would like to see the Affordable Care Act improved, not destroyed. "At a time when our country needs good leadership," he told me, "we are stuck with a Speaker of the House who's idea of moving our country forward is having the House vote to repeal the Affordable Health Care Act for the 37th time. While I don't agree with the entire Act, it provides health care coverage for millions of Americans who otherwise would not have it. Instead of trying 37 times to repeal or defund it, imagine if the House would have tried 37 times to improve it. This blatant disregard for the millions of uninsured Americans who have picked up coverage under the act highlights the differences between our beliefs. This is not the leadership we need in Congress. We need job creation in this country and that is what our Representatives should be doing, not voting, once again, to repeal the Affordable Care Act."

John Mica, the Orlando-area Boehner puppet is being taken on by progressive Democrat Nick Ruiz, who agrees with Hounshell that Obamacare has a lot of room for improvement. He's a Medicare for all, single-payer advocate. And he's eager to take the battle to the voters. "It's time to replace John Mica. He voted to kill overtime. He voted against minimum wage. He voted to cut Social Security. Mica just introduced a measure Tuesday to stymie the federal Environmental Protection Agency as it relates to the Clean Water Act permitting process; what is he thinking-- that coal pollution helps American families? The measure, called the 'Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2013,' would place limits on the EPA’s ability to reject bad mining practices. And his position on universal healthcare is that America should not have it. We'll all be better off without John Mica in Congress-- and that's why I'm running against him in 2014." The DCCC isn't helping him either.

Although they undercut his race in 2012, the DCCC has come around on one candidate we spoke with, Jim Graves, the Minnesota Democrat taking on Bachmann again. And, of course, he sees right through her tired circus act. "Once again, Bachmann is using tax payers' money to put on a show. Her actions exemplify the wasteful government spending which she claims to decry. It is worse than Einstein’s definition of "insanity being doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"-- it is dereliction of duty and an insult to the public."

Read More

The DCCC's Tighty Whities

Good target?

This is a list of the closest House races from last November. We list the races where Democrats won first and then where Republicans won. The dollar figure next to each name is the amount put into outside spending by the DCCC and their SuperPAC, the House Majority PAC.

DEMOCRATS

• Mike McIntyre (Blue Dog/New Dem-NC)- 654 $2,005,888
• Jim Matheson (Blue Dog-UT)- 768 $1,269,713
• Patrick Murphy (New Dem-FL)- 1,904 $2,924,208
• Ron Barber (New Dem-AZ)- 2,454 $1,768,506
• Brad Schneider (New Dem-IL)- 3,326 $1,442,177
• John Tierney (D-MA)- 4,330 $861,652
• Bill Owens (New Dem-NY)- 4,985 $1,215,498
• Scott Peters (New Dem-CA)- 6,992 $2,962,357
• Elizabeth Esty (New Dem-CT)- 7,461 $2,170,479

REPUBLICANS

• Rodney Davis- 1,002 $3,000,927
• Dan Benishek- 1,881 $1,282,979
• Jackie Walorski- 3,920 $483,721
• Lee Terry- 4,197 $164,736
• Michele Bachmann- 4,296 $0
• Chris Collins- 5,001 $2,968,142
• Mike Coffman- 7,001 $2,968,142

You have probably noticed one glaring exception to the massive amounts of money the DCCC poured into these races-- an average of $1,710,159. In the 10th closest race, in Minnesota's 6th CD, first-time candidate Jim Graves came within 4,197 votes of longtime incumbent and right-wing icon, Michele Bachmann... and it is the only race the DCCC refused to spend any money on. Graves is a very indepedent-minded Democrat and, unlike almost all the other candidates the DCCC spent big on, he refused to join the reactionary and corrupt New Dems that Steve Israel and Steny Hoyer are determined to flood the House Democratic caucus with-- even to the point of losing races.

Not counting outside money, Bachmann spent $11,946,232 on her reelection campaign, an incredible $66.65 for every vote. Graves spent $2,279,384 or $13.03 per vote. Just as an exercise, had the DCCC spent on Graves the average of what they spent on these close races, it seems inconceivable that he wouldn't have won by a very substantial margin. Just sayin'.

But the good news is that Steve Israel has changed his mind this cycle. The DCCC announced that MN-06 is a priority target and that Jim Graves is now a blue chip candidate. He's one of eight in their "Jumpstart" program in key districts:

• CA-31- Pete Aguilar
• CA-10- Michael Eggman
• IL-13- Ann Callis
• FL-02- Gwen Graham
• MN-06- Jim Graves
• NY-11- Domenic Recchia
• CO-06- Andrew Romanoff
• PA-08- Kevin Strouse

I'm not sure how Jumpstart differs from Red to Blue but the DCCC says its selections for the program were based on the quality of the candidate and the competitiveness of the district. Obama tied Romney 49-49% in two of the districts, IL-13 and PA-08, beat Romney in 4 others (CA-31 by a whopping 17 points, CA-10 by 4 points, CO-06 by 5 points, and NY-11 by 4 points), lost to Romney in FL-02 by 6 and in MN-06 by 5. MN-06 is a pretty red district, Bachmann's unmitigated Tea Party extremism and tendency to embarrass her constituents with her bizarre pronouncements, making it competitive.

The DCCC's new Executive Director, Kelly Ward, explained it to top donors: “Since the beginning of the cycle, we have said that we will win in 2014 because of the success of our recruitment efforts in 2013. To that end we are excited to announce the Jumpstart program, the next phase in our recruitment efforts which are already ahead of schedule. The newly-created Jumpstart program provides early financial, communications, operational and strategic support to help top-tier candidates get a head start in these highly-targeted races."

Read More

How Would You Feel If Someone Wrote, "We Need Fewer Women In Congress?"

Women make up just about 51% of the population. Women hold 98, or 18.3%, of the 535 seats in the 113th US Congress-- 20, or 20.0%, of the 100 seats in the Senate and 78, or 17.9%, of the 435 seats in the House of Representatives. So, objectively, you would have to be an idiot to not see that there is a real need to elect more women to Congress-- as well as to elect a woman president and more women throughout the government. But not bad ones. Replacing, for example, a progressive senator like Brian Schatz with a more conservative woman, Colleen Hanabusa-- who's record even on women's health issues isn't nearly as good as Schatz's-- is doing anyone any good, except making the percentages look better.

Yesterday Nancy Pelosi, who was the first female Speaker of the House-- as well as one of the best speakers in history and certainly the best Speaker in recent times-- was on Melissa Harris-Perry's MSNBC show talking about the need for more women in Congress. I doubt she has women like Michele Bachmann (R-MN), Virginia Foxx (R-NC), Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) and Martha Roby (R-AL) in mind. These women work actively against policies are in the best interests of women who don't happen to be in the top 1% of income earners. I'm certain what Pelosi wants to see more women like this elected. More women like Barbara Lee (D-CA), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Judy Chu (D-CA), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Donna Edwards (D-IL)...

As I mentioned yesterday, I'm in the middle of reading Rana Husseini's classic book on women's activism in the Middle East, Murder in the Name of Honour. Conservatives in Jordan-- like conservatives everyone and throughout time-- have fought long and hard to keep women from achieving any sense of equality. I'll get into the psychological infirmities the conservatives suffer when I discuss Husseini's book in greater detail. But I do want to point out a Parliament Deputy Mahmoud Kharabsheh insisting that brothers have the right to murder their sisters if they suspect the sisters are bringing "dishonor" to the family-- like by being the victim of rape. He adamantly opposed an initiative to overturn a law that permits this, claiming "the control over women prevents sexual diseases and mixed paternity." He claimed he wanted women to be protected, respected and afforded dignity, but added, "Jordan is still a male-dominated society and men are more capable than women are. Women have not developed themselves yet; they are not experienced enough, having not held high positions in authority as men have." Now there's a self-fulfilling prophesy of the universal conservative mind-- even if you believe that the only thing men are more capable of them women in pleasuring their own puds.

Let's forget for a moment that Michele Bachmann (R-MN) is the chair of the House Tea Party caucus, an anti-Choice fanatic and one of the most viciously anti-LGBT Members of Congress and let's make believe she's just a normal conservative congresswoman. Can you call her desire to shred the social safety net "anti-woman?" She doesn't just want to privatize Social Security and wreck Medicaid, she wants to ween everybody off Social Security and Medicare. Lee Fang recorded her in 2010 addressing a conservative group in St. Louis using fake Glenn Beck stats as the justification for ending Social Security.

Is the country too big to fail? No, the country can fail. We can, we’re not invincible. And we’re so close now to being at that point because the thing is, as Glenn Beck said last night, it is true. The $107 trillion that he put on the board. We’re $14 trillion in debt, but that doesn’t include the unfunded massive liabilities. That’s $107 trillion, and that’s for Social Security and Medicare and all the rest. You add up all those unfunded net liabilities, and all the traps that could go wrong we’re on the hook for, and what it means is what we have to do is a reorganization of all of that, Social Security and all. We have to do it simply because we can’t let the contract remain as they are because the older people are going to lose. So, what you have to do, is keep faith with the people that are already in the system, that don’t have any other options, we have to keep faith with them. But basically what we have to do is wean everybody else off. And wean everybody off because we have to take those unfunded net liabilities off our bank sheet, we can’t do it. So we just have to be straight with people. So basically, whoever our nominee is, is going to have to have a Glenn Beck chalkboard and explain to everybody this is the way it is.

Is that anti-woman? Well... not anti-rich women. This comes from the Social Security Administration:

• With longer life expectancies than men, elderly women tend to live more years in retirement and have a greater chance of exhausting other sources of income. They benefit from Social Security's cost-of-living protections because benefits are annually adjusted for inflation.
* Women reaching age 65 in 2011 are expected to live, on average, an additional 20.7 years compared with 18.7 years for men.
* Women represent 56 percent of all Social Security beneficiaries age 62 and older and approximately 68 percent of beneficiaries age 85 and older.

• The Social Security system is progressive in that lower-wage earners receive a higher percentage benefit than higher-wage earners do. The system returns a greater percentage of pre-retirement earnings to a lower-wage worker than to a higher-wage worker. Women who are low-wage workers receive back more benefits in relation to past earnings than do high-wage earners.
* In 2011, the median earnings of working-age women who worked full-time, year-round were $36,500, compared to $48,000 for men.

• In 2011, the average annual Social Security income received by women 65 years and older was $12,188, compared to $15,795 for men. Social Security provides dependent benefits to spouses, divorced spouses, elderly widows, and widows with young children.

• In 2011, for unmarried women-- including widows-- age 65 and older, Social Security comprises 50 percent of their total income. In contrast, Social Security benefits comprise only 36 percent of unmarried elderly men's income and only 31 percent of elderly couples' income.

• In 2011, 48 percent of all elderly unmarried females receiving Social Security benefits relied on Social Security for 90 percent or more of their income.

• Elderly women are less likely than elderly men to have significant family income from pensions other than Social Security. In 2010, only 22.6 percent of unmarried women aged 65 or older were receiving their own private pensions (either as a retired worker or survivor), compared to 27.3 percent of unmarried men.
* Participation in employer-sponsored retirement plans is increasing for women in today's workforce. In 2011, 55.2 percent of women employed full-time participated in an employer-sponsored public and private sector plan compared to 52.5 percent of men. Women generally receive lower pension benefits due to their relatively lower earnings.

Sure, Pelosi wants to see more women in Congress, but I bet she'll be supporting Jim Graves when he runs against Bachmann next year. Last week, Graves, a successful businessman with a clear middle-American perspective, told me he's focused on "fixing" Social Security. His plan is very different from what Bachmann says and in contrast to Bachmann's voting record. "Let’s be clear," he began, "in that Social Security is an earned benefit that hard working Americans have paid into over the life of their working careers-- they’ve earned it, it’s not an entitlement."

Here are some of the specific ways he feels we can bolster and strengthen Social Security:

1. Let’s broaden the contribution base to all income. Why should rich folks that get their incomes from “carried interest,” “preferred dividends, and all forms of unearned income not pay into the pool? Hard working folks that get their income through a payroll should not carry the entire burden.

2. Adjust the income cap from $113,700 to a sustainable level. By expanding the tax base to all personal income (earned and unearned), the income cap should be adjusted to an amount needed to keep the Social Security Trust Fund solvent for a projected 75 year period. The average folks in my district make about $50,000 per year, so they are paying in on 100% of their incomes. All the while those with massive amounts of unearned income pay little if any into the fund.

...What we do not want to do is privatize Social Security that only defeats the purpose of the program. Social Security is to protect and provide a safety net for our seniors when they get to an age that they should be able to enjoy the fruits of their labor. Privatizing the program is great for the rich, but it destroys the program for those that most need it. The entire reason that Social Security works is that it creates a pool for the social good-- it averages the risk over a larger demographic. And we definitely do not want to move the retirement age up from 65 years like Bachmann and Ryan would like to do. If you worked your entire life laying bricks, hoisting boxes, building houses…your back is sore and body is tired.

Read More