Wellington Webb
DNC Southern Caucus Meeting
My
name is Wellington Webb and I am a candidate for chairman of the
Democratic National Committee.
I
believe this election will determine the future of our party. I also
believe that before you lead, you have to listen.
Today,
I ask for your support and your vote.
I’m
a Westerner. Our values are plain. When you give your word, you keep
it. When you get knocked down, you brush yourself off and get up. When
you make a mistake, you admit it and then keep on stepping.
I
was born in
My
grandmother was born in
On
my father’s side, he and his mother were born in
Today’s
meeting reminds me of a gathering I attended here in the 1980s. We came
from across
We
need a fifty state plan which means we compete in Southern states.
Fifty percent of the white vote we lost in the south, we will never
regain. But the other fifty percent we can return to the fold by
competing for that vote on economic issues. We cannot abdicate the
South or the West to the Republican Party. A 20-state national election
means you have to run the table. You get better odds in
State
chairs and vice chairs and our state parties are critical to our
party’s success. We need revenue sharing with state parties. We need to
fund local operatives not outsiders to compete in your states. We don’t
need to pull out of states early and leave our local candidates
vulnerable to lack of national financial support.
We
need to acknowledge 527s can have a positive role to play in the
political process.
We
need to recognize that strength of our party is at the state and local
level especially: governors, members of Congress, legislators, mayors
and county officials.
The
issue is not only about the message, or the vision – but about managing
the vision and who is the communicator.
Now
let me send a message to President Bush. He wants to make significant
and dangerous changes to Social Security. The battle looming on the
horizon is clear. The hour is near; the moment is now. The fight is to
protect the retirement rights of our elderly when we have practically
eliminated elderly poverty. We should not be investing in pension plans
like Enron-type scandals as a substitute for Social Security protection.
The
President’s proposal would seek to divert all or a portion of the funds
currently supporting the Social Security program into accounts that
individuals can invest in the stock market. On the surface, this
doesn’t sound unreasonable but the outcome is the country reneging on
its promise to provide reliable financial support to senior citizens,
disabled workers and orphaned dependents.
Republican
consultant Frank Luntz has told the President to avoid the word
privatization when talking about Social Security. They should say
“personal saving accounts.”
He’s
even told him, and I’m not making this up, that Republicans have to
stop using words such as “estate” and “wealth” and that, instead, they
should say “savings” and “nest egg.”
But
we know that you can dress up a bad idea and guess what? It’s still a
bad idea. No matter the words you use, the reality is the same.
The
President is trying to undo the important reforms that came out of the
bipartisan commission chaired by Alan Greenspan in
1983. As a result
of those reforms, the trustees of the Social Security Trust fund
predict that the system will remain fully solvent until 2042. The
U.S.
Congressional Budget Office has put the date at 2052.
But
a memo from Karl Rove's top deputy, the director of White House
Strategic Initiatives, came to light earlier this week. The memo
essentially said that the public has to be misled to think that the
Social Security system is "heading for an iceberg" right now in order
to generate popular support for the President's privatization proposal.
This
is a cynical and misguided effort.
We
do
have to take steps to ensure that the solvency of the trust fund
continues after 2052. But this is neither a crisis nor is it
urgent.
And the solution is to continue the balanced and responsible approach
that the bipartisan 1983 reforms set into motion.
The
President's proposal would move us in the exact opposite direction.
It
would cost between $2 and $3 trillion dollars.
It
would wipe out the trust fund reserve at twice the current
rate.
The
tax cuts the President gave to the wealthiest one percent of Americans
could have covered the long-term Social Security shortfall. Instead, we
know the President’s plan would come from three sources – increased
federal borrowing, tax increases, or harsh cuts in Social Security
benefits.
Any
cut to Social Security benefits would hit all older Americans, but
especially the African American seniors.
Social
Security is the dominant source of income for most people 65 and older,
according to the AARP.
*88
percent have income from Social Security
*19
percent have income from private pensions or annuities
*29
percent have income from assets.
The
high poverty rate for older African-Americans would be significantly
higher without Social Security. The poverty rate would increase from 22
percent to more than 57 percent.
That’s
certainly not what President Roosevelt envisioned when signed the
Social Security Act in 1935; nor is that what Americans should accept
now.
On Social Security, and on the budget, we are the party of fiscal responsibility. We are the party that has proven our ability to manage the economy wisely and to protect the financial future of our children and grandchildren