We’re tired of hearing Mark Warner talk about “everything being on the table” every budget season. Looking “centrist” for some future run for President or Governor or whatever at the expense of the people who voted for you is getting old. The phrase “everything is on the table” is an obvious reference to cutting Social Security.
Warner’s odd position on this issue is just as odd as a Democrat campaigning in Galax for statewide office in Virginia. That “on the table” jargon can be linked to why Warner barely won re-election last year as Ed Gillespie. What Democrat would leave their house and go rushing to the polls to vote for Warner when he keeps pushing to put cuts to Social Security on the table?
Typically when a Democrat talks like a Republican, voters vote for the real Republican. Warner once voted alongside Senate Republicans to keep Social Security “on the table” and benefit modifications. Aren’t there enough Republicans in Congress around talking about Social Security cuts? Why does the GOP need Warner’s help? Why would voters — Democrat or Republican — want to hear their multi-millionaire elected official talk about cutting a program we’ve all spent all our lives paying in to?
There’s nothing worse than an elected official pushing policy that don’t impact them yet they keep repeating how great that policy is for everyone else. Warner’s life isn’t going to change if Social Security disappeared completely. But there are millions of Americans and thousands of VIrginians out there who have paid into Social Security with every paycheck they’ve earned. Warner for billions in tax cuts for millionaires like him. Now those massive cuts for guys like him Donald Trump and Warren Buffett have to be paid for and cuts to Social Security are “on the table.”
How about Warner figure out some other way to look noble and centrist on issues rather than always focusing on Social Security? Is one Senator’s personal branding more important than millions of poor Americans losing what little money they have for a program they paid in to for decades?