Scott McAdams on the Shannyn Moore Show – (PODCAST)
Scott McAdams spoke with Shannyn Moore on September 7, 2010. You can hear the podcast HERE.
Donate to Scott McAdams’ campaign HERE.
Scott McAdams just talked about the endorsement that has meant the most to him. It’s from his hometown newspaper The Sitka Sentinel.
Our Man
Joe Miller’s stunning upset of Lisa Murkowski in the Republican primary for Senate has made the seemingly impossible suddenly quite possible.
Until August 24 Sitka’s Scott McAdams was expected to be the Democrats’ sacrificial candidate in the fall election for US Senate seat held by Lisa Murkowski the past eight years. Murkowski’s approval rating among all Alaska voters made her the odds-on favorite against any Democratic challenger.
Under the circumstances, we are fortunate indeed that a candidate so well qualified as Scott McAdams stepped into the breech. Only a few weeks ago who could have known that he would be running against a candidate ensconced in the very fringe of far-right politics, and not, as expected, a widely respected and conventionally conservative Republican incumbent?
Alaska’s Republican voters certainly have the right to cannibalize their own establishment, as they have done in turning Lisa Murkowski out of office. On an individual basis, those voters are also perfectly entitled to vote against their own self-interest insofar as it is affected by the federal subsidies Alaskans enjoy, but which are adamantly opposed by Mr. Miller.
But it’s a fair question, at this point of the game, as to whether a majority of Alaska voters in a wide-open election are ready to buy into Mr. Miller’s idea of the role of US Senator from Alaska. That idea may be summed up as the opposite of the one practiced by the late Sen. Ted Stevens.
It would be sad indeed if, in light of Mr. Miller’s emergence as the GOP candidate, the best alternative for Alaska voters turned out to be a candidate whose main qualification was that he was not Joe Miller.
That, fortunately, is not the case. The Scott McAdams we have come to know through his many years of public service on the school board, and more recently as mayor, is well-qualified by his experience, personality and judgment in matters of public concern to be an outstanding advocate for Alaska in the US Senate. The task he now faces, and it is a big one, is to acquaint himself to voters throughout the state, proving that he has a great deal more to offer than the fact that he is not Joe Miller.
Money will play a big part in the campaigns of these two candidates, and Mr. Miller has the edge in that department. Therefore, it is critical, in our opinion, that we, as citizens, offer every opportunity for the candidates to debate and outline their views in public forums.
If that is done, we have every expectation that another small town Alaska mayor will rise to national prominence.
Scott McAdams when asked about senior issues talked about an interview he’d done with AARP. Here’s that interview.
Indeed; I can’t believe this situation in that I expect to be donating to a viable senate campaign in Alaska (!).
Wow, just wow.
Wow, great endorsement, great candidate, great future Senator!
Wow. I am favorable impressed. This is a very bright fellow and his heart is in the riight place. GO SCOTT !!!!
Scott could be Alaska’s best senator ever. And I say that as someone who likes and gave contributions to both Mark Begich and Lisa Murkowski.
Wow, Alaska, a real Alaskan you can send to the Senate! Do it!
“If that is done, we have every expectation that another small town Alaska mayor will rise to national prominence.” – from the Sitka Sentinal
I wonder if the article’s author had to sit on his/her hands to keep from adding: “One who will bring honor and distinction to our fair State, instead of ridicule and scorn.” [meow!] beth.
I want to hear Miller’s answers to these questions. It doesn’t sound like he could answer any of them if he wants to get rid of Social Security.
Mr. McAdams had good response to questions. I know AARP has been working on having the “Windfall Act” repealed. It is not “double dipping” just because someone worked for the State if they paid into Social Security and met their quarters. A retirement fund of a private company is no different then working for the State, or borough (for a teacher) which has a retirement fund. People who work for the State should not be discriminated against for working for the State or being a teacher as long as they paid into Social Security. I don’t know if this makes sense or if others know about this. I fully support AARP in their work.
This makes perfect sense. If I earn a retirement in two different private companies, I would get two pensions plus social security. But if I contribute to social security for ten years, then work for a government employer, my social security is reduced. Not right on so many levels.
Doesn’t sound fair to me but if so why does McCain flaunt his S.S. checks.My thing is congressional people should also have to pay into S.S..just like the rest of us and if the cap was lifted we could keep it solvent for a long time as long as something is done to stop congress from borrowing from the fund.
–Congress- and Senate- type folks *DO* pay into social security while in office. They also have their own C/S retirement fund (pension system) that they pay into. beth. http://www.snopes.com/politics/socialsecurity/pensions.asp
In Alaska, at least some municipal officials pay into the state system, instead of social security. I wonder if that is true in other places/offices as well.
AKM (or anyone else)…I see Murkowski is trying the libertarian thing again. I don’t get why she isn’t running as an independent (similar to Christ)???
I read that it is two late for that she has only the two choices,a write in or the libertarian!!!!!!!
For some reason Federal employees get both Federal and Soc. security as if they were private. Don’t understand it, but that’s the way it is. Alaska is just one of a few that don’t get both completely.
I don’t know if the below is an ‘explanation’ of why some folks get (what some perceive as ‘double dipping’) multiple retirement payment funds from Federal/State and SS, or not, E of Anc P, (or even if that is what your statement was getting at) but here goes… beth.
bethSpouse spent 24-y in the US military. SS, FICA, etc., was taken out of each monthly pay check. When bethSpouse retired from the military, a retirement check started coming in monthly…his ‘pension’ from working for Uncle Sam for 24 years and calculated on the base-pay bethSpouse was earning at the time of retirement.
bethSpouse started a second career upon retirement from the military — paying into *that* job’s retirement system (pension fund) was required, and each month, SS, FICA, etc. were also withheld from pay for that job. bethSpouse continued to get military retirement (pension) check.
bethSpouse is now retiring for a second time — an ‘early retirement’ –age 62– due to health. bethSpouse will continue to get the monthly check from the military and will start getting a monthly check from the paid-into-monthly retirement plan of the second job; since bethSpouse was only in that job for 16.7 years instead of 20 (‘full pension’ time), the monthly check will be prorated accordingly.
Additionally, since bethSpouse has paid into SS (and Medicare) each month for 44 years, a check from SS will *also* come in each month (albeit not the ‘full’ amount, because of bethSpouse not being 66-yo –the ‘full retirement’ age– when bethSpouse applied for SS disability retirement.)
SS payments are *separate* from any *other* pension/retirement plans a worker may –or may not– have…as long as a worker has paid in enough ‘quarters’ [into the system] they are eligible for a SS check monthly upon retirement.
There’s a formula for figuring it all out, but basically, the amount of the monthly SS check received depends on how much has been paid into the system [by the worker] over the years, how many years it has been paid into, and how close the worker is to (plus or minus) the age of 66 upon retirement.
I’m outside, can’t vote for Mr. McAdams, but of course would.
THIS though, has been sticking in my head all day. From a comment on TPM, with the link to the NYT article. I’m going to spread it as far and wide as I can.
Interesting article in the New York Times about Joe Miller. He has eight children. So his family receives TEN dividend cheques from the Alaska Permanent Fund each year. Or around $32,690 per year. But that’s not government money.
When he worked as an assistant attorney for the Fairbanks North Borough (part time/20 hrs per week) he completed his master’s degree in Economics. The North Borough paid for this. But that’s not government money.
When he worked for the North Borough, his family’s health care benefits were paid for. But that’s not government money.
What money has the government stolen from him?
If a Tea Partier gets government money, it’s not government money but if anyone else gets it it is? IOKIYAT.
From the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/04/us/politics/04alaska.html
- marionetta
Laughed when I read Lisa’s statement that she’s “not a quitter”. Ah, the cat fight continues whether she’s in the race or not.
I’ve donated to McAdams campaign, and support him!
Here is something interesting, Anchorage Mayor Sullivan endorsed Miller!
Meanwhile, the Miller campaign on Sunday announced the backing of Anchorage Mayor Dan Sullivan. “Joe will bring new energy and new ideas to Congress and that is what our country needs in these challenging times,” Sullivan said in a statement released by the Miller campaign.
The Miller campaign on Monday announced the endorsement of two state legislators: Rep. Mike Kelly of Fairbanks and Rep. Bob Lynn of Anchorage.
http://www.newsminer.com/view/full_story/9396717/article-Murkowski-getting–huge-outpouring–of-support–aide-says?instance=home_news_window_left_bullets
Read more: Fairbanks Daily News-Miner – Murkowski getting huge outpouring of support aide says
I agree bethspouse if he hasn’t reached full retirement age from SS he will not get full benefit, or if he doesn’t have full amount of quarters under SS.
Also, I looked on federal page, and they have since 1984 two different systems, so I’m not sure they get full SS payments at retirement age.
Alaska opted out of SS, I believe in late seventies. In a case I know of he worked for Alaska State when they were still under SS, had full quarters for SS from other jobs and was at full retirement age when he retired. He got his State retirement after 30 years, worked under SS at other jobs and while at work for State, but when he went to sign up for medicare at 65, he was going to wait for SS until after 65 even though his age for SS was 65.When talking with SS, he found out he wouldn’t get full SS benefits as he worked for the State, and they let him know what he’d be given using the “Windfall Act” formula. He feels lucky to have the defined benefit retirement plan that was changed a few years ago. I have been told Alaska is one State in about 7 that Windfall Act (WEP) affects. AARP would explain it better. I found a sight on SS that talks about it. And, it says some Federal jobs along with schools and colleges may be affected, too.
http://www.ssa.gov/gpo-wep/
Our State needs to work to get back a defined benefit retirement plan for teachers and public employees. That’s just my opinion.