In her role with the White House office on Environmental Policy, McGinty also participated on the National Economic Council and Domestic Policy council.
Clinton’s 1993 economic package raised taxes on “middle-income social security recipients” while raising taxes by $246 billion. The bill raised the amount of social security benefits subject to income taxes for upper-income and middle-income retirees from 50% to 85% and an estimated 5.5 million senior citizens receiving social security were forced to pay higher taxes.
For these reasons, the AARP said they were “deeply disappointed” in the budget.
But that didn’t stop Katie McGinty from praising the bill – McGinty said:
We [The White House] feel quite confident that the public understands why the economic package, overall, is a good thing.
McGinty also said:
The package that we’ve put together really works as a whole. It’s fair, it’s progressive…
HYPOCRISY ALERT: McGinty’s strong endorsement is puzzling as she accuses her primary opponent, Joe Sestak of trying to “balance a budget on the back of senior citizens…”
RESEARCH:
In June 1993, Katie McGinty Told A Japanese Newspaper “We [The White House] Feel Quite Confident That The Public Understands Why The Economic Package, Overall, Is A Good Thing.” “In an interview with The Yomiuri Shimbun, Katie McGinty also noted that certain sectors of U.S. President Bill Clinton’s environmental program, particularly a projected energy tax and increased grazing fees, had not been received by the public with much enthusiasm. … The energy tax, which the administration supports, has not been enthusiastically received by the public. ‘We’ll wait and see how we fare with the energy tax. But we feel quite confident that the public understands why the economic package, overall, is a good thing and that the energy tax is really a central part of that,’ McGinty said.” (The Daily Yomiuri, 6/24/93)
McGinty: “The Package That We’ve Put Together Really Works As A Whole. It’s Fair, It’s Progressive…” “‘Other senators or other congressmen … say we can reduce spending more. But when they try to do that, what happens? They are being very unfair to senior citizens. They’re being very unfair to the states. The package that we’ve put together really works as a whole. It’s fair, it’s progressive, and the energy tax, in particular, makes sense in terms of economics, makes sense environmentally, and makes sense from a national security point of view,’ she added.” (The Daily Yomiuri, 6/24/93)
NOTE: McGinty Participated On The National Economic Council And Domestic Policy Council While Working At The White House. “President Bill Clinton began his reorganization of the White House on Monday by establishing an office of environmental policy and promising to give it a voice in all decision-making, even in foreign policy. ‘We are today changing the way government works,’ Clinton said. He announced that he was shutting down the 24-year-old Council on Environmental Quality and replacing it with a White House office on environmental policy. …’We must move in a new direction to recognize that protecting the environment means strengthening the economy and creating new jobs for Americans,’ the president added. He named Kathleen McGinty, 29, a lawyer who has been Gore’s chief environmental adviser, to run the new office. Clinton said McGinty would participate in the National Security Council, the National Economic Council, the Domestic Policy Council and other agencies.” (“New Environmental Office Established,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 2/9/93)
President Bill Clinton’s 1993 Economic Package Raised Taxes By $246 Billion, Including Tax Increases On “Middle-Income Social Security Recipients.” “The Clinton budget would raise taxes by $246 billion over the next five years, including an across-the-board energy tax and higher income taxes for the well-to-do, corporations and middle-income Social Security recipients. It also has about $100 billion in spending cuts, including reduced Medicare reimbursements to doctors and hospitals and lower payments to federal workers and retirees.” (Ron Fournier, “Clinton Pushes Economic Package On Capitol Hill,” The Associated Press, 5/19/93)
The Bill Raised The Amount Of Social Security Benefits Subject To Income Taxes For Upper-Income And Middle-Income Retirees From 50 Percent To 85 Percent. “With Vice President Al Gore casting the tie-breaking vote, the Senate gave final Congressional approval tonight to President Clinton’s five-year economic program. This means that the budget plan, the most important legislative issue of the Clinton Presidency so far, cleared Congress by the narrowest possible margin and awaits only the President’s signature before becoming law. Enactment of the legislation was viewed at the White House as essential to Mr. Clinton’s ultimate success as President. …Other tax provisions include these: …An increase to 85 percent from 50 percent in the amount of Social Security benefits subject to income taxes for upper-income and some middle-income retirees.” (David E. Rosenbaum, “Clinton Wins Approval Of His Budget Plan As Gore Votes To Break Senate Deadlock,” The New York Times, 8/7/93)
An Estimated 5.5 Million Senior Citizens Receiving Social Security Were Forced To Pay Higher Taxes. “An estimated 5.5 million Social Security retirees would have to pay a higher tax as a result of the change, which is expected to raise $24.5 billion over the next five years.” (David Hess, “Income Tax Hike On Social Security Angers Older Americans,” The Philadelphia Inquirer, 8/10/93)
AARP Said They Were “Deeply Disappointed” In The Budget. “While ‘deeply disappointed’ in the overall budget agreement, which included $56 billion in cuts in the Medicare program, Horace B. Deets, executive director of the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), said the final Social Security tax formula was not as bad as earlier proposals and that he was pleased that many middle-income seniors were protected from further tax increases. However, Deets added, ‘Many will still see a significant tax increase not experienced by others in the same income brackets.’” (Mary Beth Franklin, “13% of seniors will feel impact of new tax,” Intelligencer Journal [Lancaster, PA], 9/6/93)
McGinty Attacked Sestak For Praising The 2010 Simpson-Bowles Plan’s “Broad Deficit-Reduction Blueprint.” “McGinty, Gov. Wolf’s former chief of staff, has cited Sestak’s praise for the 2010 Simpson-Bowles plan’s broad deficit-reduction blueprint, an outline that includes cuts to Social Security, to go after him on that issue. ‘My parents retired on Social Security, we couldn’t have made it without it – that’s the wrong choice and wrong for working families,’ she said.” (Jonathan Tamari, “Sestak, McGinty, Fetterman Take The Gloves Off In Debate For Dems In Senate Race,” Philadelphia Inquirer, 4/7/16)
- VIDEO: McGINTY: “[Sestak] has said it was courage and the proper thing to do to call for the Social Security retirement age to be lifted to 69 and significantly cut benefits. My parents retired on Social Security. We could not have made it without it. That’s the wrong choice and wrong for working families.” (WTAE, 4/5/16)
McGinty Accused Sestak Of Trying To “Balance A Budget On The Back Of Senior Citizens…” “Democrats are sharpening their knives – and their contrasts – as the Pennsylvania U.S. Senate race enters its final three weeks. Katie McGinty allies attacked front-runner Joe Sestak on Saturday and Monday, accusing him of favoring cuts to Social Security and Medicare. The criticism – the first time McGinty has trained her fire on a Democratic rival in the race – mirror her comments to the Inquirer at a recent editorial board meeting. ‘I would not start by trying to balance a budget on the back of senior citizens – don’t agree with that, don’t think that’s the right way to go,’ she said when asked to distinguish herself from Sestak. The criticism points to Sestak’s comments in support for the Simpson-Bowles budget plan, a sweeping 2010 proposal aimed at cutting the federal deficit with a mix of tax hikes and spending cuts. The compromise blueprint ultimately went nowhere.” (Jonathan Tamari, “McGinty, Allies Attack Sestak Over Social Security,” Philadelphia Inquirer, 4/4/16)
- VIDEO: McGinty Attacked Sestak For Campaigning On “The Need To Take On Entitlements” And Wanting To Adopt Cuts To Social Security. McGINTY: “I just have to say Congressman not a couple of months ago at The Press Club you really were quite impassioned about how taking on those as you called them entitlements was the courageous thing to do and the proper thing to do was to adopt those cuts to Social Security that have been proposed in a budget deal that many Tea Party Republicans rallied around. Those were your words. That was your speech. And you’ve spoken repeatedly about the need to take on entitlements.” (WTAE, 4/5/16, 15:10 mark)