Marshall, Clay engage in Social Security ad war

In the television ad war that underlies this year's campaign for Georgia's 3rd Congressional District, the voter-viewer has witnessed a six-day barrage about Social Security.

An ad by Republican candidate Calder Clay asserts that U.S. Rep. Jim Marshall, a Democrat, talks one way about protecting Social Security but votes another.

Marshall responded with his own ad that says Clay doesn't have his facts straight.

So who is telling the truth? As is often the case in politics, it depends on how you look at the picture.

Here's what Clay's ad says: "Jim Marshall is at it again. On television, Jim Marshall says he'll stop Social Security money from being spent on other government programs. But the Congressional Record shows Marshall actually voted for a budget plan that would spend more than $1 trillion of the Social Security trust fund he claims he's working to protect."

Clay's ad refers to Marshall's vote March 25 for a plan called the Blue Dog budget, put forth by a coalition of fiscally conservative Democrats. According to records, the Blue Dog budget did propose using the Social Security trust fund as well as the net cash flow of the Postal Service to offset the federal deficit. The cost from 2005 to 2009: more than $1 trillion.

From that standpoint, Clay's ad hews closely to the facts.

But Marshall says it is dishonest.

"If he understood the realistic options members of Congress have for trying to tackle this issue, he could not honestly say my vote for the Blue Dog budget illustrates that I am not working on the issue," Marshall said. "Actually that vote is one of the things that does illustrate I'm working on the issue."

There were five budget plans on the table in March. All of them, including the proposal by President Bush, would have used the Social Security surplus to offset the deficit.

Clay acknowledged as much in a statement to the media that was released Oct. 7, the same day his Social Security ad began running.

Marshall's campaign supplied budget figures showing that the Blue Dog budget decreased the deficit to a lower level than the others over a five-year period. And Marshall contends that doing so is the most responsible way of restoring government to a position where Social Security funds are not diverted to other uses.

Clay's Oct. 7 statement carried a headline that called Marshall's budget vote a "raid" on the Social Security trust fund.

The statement drew a negative response from the head of the Concord Coalition, a nonpartisan group based in Washington founded in 1992 by a bipartisan collection of former congressional leaders to advocate "fiscal responsibility." The group supported the Blue Dog budget.

"Describing the Blue Dog Budget as a raid on Social Security is a gross mischaracterization," said Concord Coalition executive director Bob Bixby. "Because every budget, including the president's, does that. If the candidate wants to describe the president's budget as a raid on Social Security, have at it. But the budget deficit is so deep that you have no choice."

Bixby added, "The thing that was the most attractive element of the Blue Dog budget was their return to 'pay as you go.' That means if you're either going to cut taxes or come up with a new entitlement program you need to pay for it so it doesn't expand the deficit. We had that rule in the '90s. It helped bring the deficit under control. It expired in 2002. Some of us have been pushing for it to be returned."

Marshall has been endorsed by the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, an advocacy group whose focus is those two programs. In its Oct. 1 endorsement letter, the group said that Marshall has "consistently opposed proposals that would divert contributions from Social Security into private accounts."

Clay, meanwhile, favors allowing new contributors to Social Security to put part of their contributions into personal savings accounts.

"It's not just that Jim Marshall is opposed to it, it's that his opponent is for it. We felt that that was a pretty compelling reason," said Max Richtman, executive vice president of the National Committee. He called it the "life or death issue" for the Social Security program.

Clay declined to say which version of the budget he would have supported last March.

"I can't say, because I haven't been there," he said. "If I did vote for any particular budget that spent Social Security trust fund money, I wouldn't go on television saying I didn't."

His campaign declined to suggest any groups that might counter the view of the Concord Coalition or the National Committee.

As for Marshall's explanation of the budget options last March, Clay said, "That's not the issue. The issue is that Jim Marshall is telling people he will not play games with the Social Security Trust Fund, but yet he voted for a budget that will spend over 1 trillion dollars of it. I don't have a problem with the vote. What I have a problem with is Jim Marshall looking into the eye of his constituents and saying one thing and doing another."