Senator Strives To Slaughter Social Security, Might Have Slaughtered His Career Instead

Over the last couple of years, Americans have been concerned about their Social Security. With fears rising that it will run out and those who have nothing but that program to live off on after retirement, Social Security has become a major campaign initiative within politics. The Inquisitr reported on the fears of Social Security running out of money in which unemployment extensions might have killed the program for 2015. Yet there was a Social Security hike which might result in baby boomers living longer.

American citizens however may take one step closer to a nation that no longer has social security if the population of the state of Kentucky were to vote in favor for Republicans in the Senate Race. Some reports express that may not happen because Mitch McConnell’s crusade to get rid of social security, in its current state, is disliked by many. He may not even be able to meme this into a somewhat popular idea.

According to Insider Louisville and MSNBC, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Republican-Kentucky) is in the midst of his toughest race of his career but seems to come off as lukewarm to some voters. On one side of the coin, he is proud to be the nation’s top obstructionist. On the other side of the coin, he wants the public to see him as a consummate businessman in making deals. The latter has been proven when McConnell recently cited something interesting earlier in his campaign about social security.

“After Bush was re-elected in 2004, he wanted us to try to fix Social Security. I spent a year trying to get any Democrat in the Senate – even those most reasonable Democrat of all, Joe Lieberman – to help us.”

George W. Bush’s plan to fix social security was to privatize it. This generally meant giving workers the authority to invest their social security in markets that may or may not result in higher returns. Democrats and the American mainstream were not privy to the concept which makes Mitch McConnell bringing it up very peculiar, especially when finalization on voting is coming up very soon.

Other sources however say that Mitch McConnell did not want to privatize Social Security but instead enforce its importance. According to WBKO and Daily Kos, the reason for his outright denial is his opponent Alison Lundergan Grimes (Democrat-Kentucky) along with her Democratic allies have used Mitch McConnell’s social security statement as firepower against the incumbent. In response, McConnell made the following statement about social security recently.

“That’s just one of the many fictions the Grimes campaign has been spinning. Obviously, preserving and protecting Social Security is the most important thing any of us can do.”

The question is which statement holds more water for Mitch McConnell and which one will the voting public stand by? This seems to be a case of flip-flopping to appeal to voters but that may or may not work. Still, he is doing well and reportedly gained in the polls garnering a lead over Alison Lundergan Grimes back in September. His second statement may just be a “safety net” just in case.

What are your views on McConnell’s two statements on social security and which one do you take? On the social security topic, do you believe in its privatization or should it just stay the same?