With Stock Market In Turmoil, Bush And Coleman’s Policies Would Have Cost Minnesota Seniors Their Financial Security

Franken Receives Endorsement Of National Committee To Preserve Social Security And Medicare – Joined By NCPSSM Executive Vice President Max Richtman And Local Seniors At News Conference

Coleman Supported Privatization, Opposed Cheaper Prescriptions – Minnesota Seniors Need New Leadership

SAINT PAUL [10/08/08] – With the stock market struggling in the wake of the Wall Street crisis, DFL U.S. Senate candidate Al Franken today held a news conference with Rep. Betty McCollum, calling on Senator Norm Coleman to acknowledge that the Social Security privatization scheme supported by him and President Bush would have been a disaster for Minnesota seniors.

Franken was also joined by local seniors as well as Max Richtman, Executive Vice President of the National Committee To Preserve Social Security And Medicare, who conveyed the group’s endorsement.

Al Franken:

“Social Security is a critical promise we make to our parents, and to future generations – and it’s the foundation of financial security for many Minnesotans. But if George Bush and Norm Coleman had their way, that foundation would be crumbling beneath our feet. It’s time for Norm Coleman to admit that he has been just plain wrong on Social Security. And let’s not forget that he’s voted to let drug companies rip off Medicare to the tune of $30 billion a year. Minnesota seniors can’t trust Norm Coleman.”

Betty McCollum:

“Minnesota families are facing tough times — they need a champion in the Senate who will fight for them. That’s why I support Al Franken. Al is committed to fighting for middle-class tax cuts, more affordable college tuition, and policies that help Minnesota women balance work and family. Al’s opponent, Sen. Coleman, has been working for George Bush these past six years, not us. Al Franken will always put Minnesota first.”

NCPSSM Executive Vice President Max Richtman:

“Al Franken will be a champion for Minnesota seniors who rely on Social Security, and an advocate for lowering drug prices by allowing Medicare to negotiate with the pharmaceutical companies. We are impressed and his passionate commitment to seniors’ issues, and all Minnesotans will be proud of his work on their behalf in Washington.”

Coleman has been a steadfast supporter of President Bush’s plan to put Social Security money into the stock market, undermining the program’s guarantee to Minnesota seniors. And with Bush and Coleman’s economic policies resulting in a stock market slump, their risky scheme would have cost Minnesota seniors the secure retirement they’d worked hard to achieve.

In addition, Coleman has hurt Minnesota seniors by voting to prohibit Medicare from negotiating with pharmaceutical companies for cheaper prescriptions under Medicare Part D.

Coleman has taken more than $2 million from Wall Street and financial interests, more than any other Senate candidate in the country. In addition, he has accepted more campaign contributions from drug companies than any politician in Minnesota history.

---

Coleman On Privatizing Social Security

Coleman Has Steadfastly Supported George Bush’s Risky Plan to Privatize Social Security

2000: Coleman Said Bush Showed “Bravery And Courage” With Social Security Privatization Plan. In July 2000, the Star Tribune reported, “St. Paul Mayor Norm Coleman, chairman of the Bush campaign in Minnesota, said Gore’s new proposal acknowledges that his Social Security plan didn’t fix the problem. ‘You can’t keep the system the way it is, because it’s broken,’ Coleman said. Bush showed ‘bravery and courage’ by making a proposal that he knew might not be popular right away. ‘Leadership sometimes requires you to lead people to places they may not be prepared to go,’ Coleman said. ‘George Bush would rather be right than be popular, and time will prove him right on this one.’” [Star Tribune, 7/3/00]

2005: Coleman: No One In Social Security Debate Is Changing Benefits For Those Receiving Or Nearing Retirement. In a 2005 op-ed, Coleman wrote, “No one in today’s debate on the future of Social Security advocates changing Social Security for those who are receiving retirement benefits or for those nearing retirement. The retirement security you’re counting on is intact and will never change under any plan. But … we want to give our children and grandchildren a better life than we had. Unfortunately, Social Security on its current course cannot do that.” [St. Cloud Times, 2/27/05]

Coleman: Investing In Personal Accounts “Makes Sense.” In a 2005 op-ed, Coleman wrote, “Letting younger workers invest in personal accounts that draw interest like a 401K plan makes sense as an approach to giving them retirement security equal to if not better than our own. The return on Social Security investment is less than 2 percent. Average annual earnings the past 10 years on conservative investments has been 5 percent. [St. Cloud Times, 2/27/05]

2005: “I Hope The President Stays With Personal Accounts.” In April 2005, Coleman told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, “I think the president has done a good job of letting the public know Social Security has problems. There’s no question about it. My friends on the other side of the aisle haven’t offered anything, haven’t put anything on the table. I hope the president stays with personal accounts, and then dispels some of the myths, by the way, the myths that somehow those who receive disability payments through Social Security will be harmed by whatever the president does. That’s simply not true.” [CNN, 4/28/05]

Coleman On Medicare Drug Price Negotiation

Coleman Has “Steered Viewers In The Wrong Direction” On His Stance On Negotiation–Has Repeatedly Opposed Allowing Medicare To Negotiate Lower Prescription Drug Prices

Pioneer Press Blog: “There Are A Few Problems” With Coleman’s Ad On Negotiation. In September 2008, Pioneer Press political reporter Rachel Stassen-Berger, criticized a Coleman campaign ad on prescription drugs, saying “There are a few problems with the ad, which might steer viewers in the wrong direction … The ad says that Coleman, ‘voted against his party to let Medicare negotiate with drug companies.’ While that describes a 2007 bill, which Coleman indeed supported, Coleman also voted for the 2003 bill which created the Medicare drug benefit and banned the federal government from negotiating with drug companies for all Medicare beneficiaries.” [Pioneer Press, "Political Animal," 9/18/08 (emphasis added)]

• Star Tribune: “Coleman Misleads When He Says Franken Opposed Subsidized Drugs.” In September 2008, the Star Tribune wrote, “Coleman’s ad misleads when it claims Franken opposed outright prescription drugs for seniors.” [Star Tribune, 9/19/08]

Coleman Voted For Medicare Prescription Drug That Gave Drug Companies What They Wanted And Did Little To Control Costs. In November 2003, Coleman voted for a bill creating a prescription drug benefit under Medicare. The Washington Post reported that pharmaceutical companies “won explicit prohibition of what they most feared: giving government the power to negotiate drug prices on behalf of all seniors, and giving all consumers the right to import drugs from Canada or other countries with lower drug prices.” In a December 2003 editorial, the Duluth News-Tribune cited those provisions when they criticized the prescription drug bill, writing, “The main problem with the bill signed by the president is that it makes no effort to contain costs.” [Vote 459, 11/25/03; Washington Post, 11/30/03; Duluth News-Tribune, Editorial, 12/19/03]

Coleman Twice Voted Against Allowing The Government To Negotiate Lower Drug Prices For Medicare. In March 2005, Coleman voted against an amendment “designed to encourage the Senate to adopt legislation that would allow the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate prices of prescription drugs for Medicare,” according to Congressional Quarterly. In November 2005, Coleman voted to kill an amendment that “would allow the HHS secretary to negotiate with drug companies to obtain lower prices for Medicare,” according to CongressDaily. [Vote 60, 3/17/05; Congressional Quarterly Today, 3/17/05; Vote 302, 11/3/05; National Journal's CongressDaily, 11/3/05]

January 2007: Coleman Opposed Medicare Negotiations; Said The System Was Working. In January 2007, The Hill reported, “Despite Democrats’ emphasis on negotiation during their electoral triumph last year, Coleman said yesterday he would continue to oppose government involvement in Medicare drug prices. ‘We’ve got a system now that’s working,’ Coleman said, acknowledging that he would risk political attacks during his reelection run in 2008 but charging that negotiation would ‘add another layer of bureaucracy.’” [The Hill, 1/10/07]

April 2008: Coleman Argued Against Negotiating Prescription Drug Prices During A Radio Interview, Denied Having Voted For Negotiation A Year Earlier. During an April 2008 interview on MPR, Coleman was asked about criticism that Republicans could have allowed seniors to save even more money under Part D if they had allowed Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices. Coleman responded, “The CBO has come back and said they’ve looked at that and that simply isn’t true. I supported a provision, I believe it was a year ago, that would allow the Secretary to be involved, not to do price fixing, not to negotiate prices, on his own, but actually to provide more transparency. I believe that people should know what, what are the other drugs out there, what are the costs. So we’re actually giving the Secretary the power to provide greater transparency. I think that’s the key there, but this claim that somehow you’re going to save billions if we, you know, if the government set the prices or we did what we did with the VA. The problem with using the VA system is the model provides a limited formulary of drugs. And, so, in the end, if you want to ration drugs that’s a model to go to, but I don’t think that’s what our citizens want.” [MPR Midday, 4/18/08 (emphasis added)]

Coleman Has Taken Almost $350,000 From The Pharmaceutical Industry; More Than Any Member Of Congress In Minnesota. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Coleman’s campaigns have accepted $348,567 in campaign contributions from the pharmaceuticals/health products industry. Coleman has accepted more campaign contributions from the pharmaceuticals/health products industry than any other current or former Member of Congress from Minnesota. [Center for Responsive Politics, Accessed 9/29/08 – Senate Contributions, House Contributions]

This entry was posted on Wednesday, October 8th, 2008 at 14:10 and is filed under Press Releases. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.