Rogan Criticized for Social Security Plan

Democrats and labor and senior citizen groups are adding Social Security to the already heated mix of issues in the widely watched race in the Glendale area’s 27th Congressional District.

Thursday, a forum on Social Security and Medicare turned into a series of testy exchanges between some panelists and supporters of Rep. James E. Rogan (R-Glendale).

The panelists were local affiliates of the New Century Alliance for Social Security, a nationwide group that is battling efforts to “privatize” Social Security.

The nonpartisan alliance, which Rogan contends has a liberal bias, is asking congressional candidates in the Nov. 7 election to promise, among other things, that they will oppose any plan that would allow workers to privately invest a portion of the taxes they now pay into Social Security.

The main challenger to Rogan’s reelection bid, state Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Burbank), signed the group’s pledge, as did one of the two minor-party candidates, Miriam Hospodar of the Natural Law Party.

But Rogan did not. He supports a Republican plan to allow workers to invest up to 2 percentage points of the 12% of their wages that goes to Social Security. (Coalition members said Libertarian candidate Ted Brown did not respond to their pledge request.)

Neither Rogan, who is in Washington, D.C., nor Schiff attended Thursday’s forum in a packed meeting room of the Glendale Recreation Center. But Rogan campaign staffers and volunteers showed up to wave signs and distribute fliers detailing Rogan’s stance on Social Security and related issues.

While saying they are nonpartisan and are not endorsing any candidates, panelists from the Tri-Cities Alliance to Protect Social Security criticized positions taken by Rogan and took him to task for not responding to their pledge request.

“We must not allow privatization of a part of Social Security. . . . People would not invest or save it,” alliance member Eugene Golway of Glendale said. Then he told the audience of mostly seniors that Rogan’s office had repeatedly put him off when he tried to find out whether Rogan would sign the pledge.

The Rogan faction in the audience jeered. “This is not a nonpartisan group; you’re all liberals!” shouted one woman wearing a Bush/Cheney button.

When it came time to open the forum to questions from the audience, Rogan campaign manager Jason Roe asked to be heard to “clear up some misinformation.”

Roe said the national group’s board is made up mainly of liberal Democrats, including the Rev. Jesse Jackson. And he said panel moderator Marvin Schacter of Pasadena, long active in civic and senior citizens causes, “has made quite a career of attacking congressman Rogan.”

Roe told the audience that Rogan supports “almost everything” the coalition is seeking but could not sign the pledge because he believes allowing some of the funds to be invested privately will help protect the system and workers.

Social Security is one of several key issues, including health care and education, that are shaping not only the presidential race but also the nation’s hottest congressional contests.

The Rogan-Schiff matchup in the 27th District, which also includes parts of Pasadena, South Pasadena, San Marino and the Los Angeles communities of Sunland and Tujunga, is one of about four dozen across the country that figure most prominently in the battle to control the House of Representatives. Democrats need just seven more seats to recapture the majority, and their House leaders have targeted the Republicans they believe to be the most vulnerable.

The forum came just days after the California Democratic Party began running ads about Rogan and Social Security on cable television stations in the district. The ads contend that Rogan raided the Social Security Trust Fund to pay for other government programs.

Rogan responded by pointing out he voted last year for legislation that would prohibit using Social Security funds for other government programs. In the past, both parties have used the funds for other programs. But Rogan said Democrats did it far more often, and he called on Schiff to “defend his party’s four-decade-long spending spree” with the funds.