Leadership Gazette

Progress in Iraq

2007-04-20T11:28:00.000-07:00

Sen. Graham recently returned from a nine day trip to Iraq--two days as part of a congressional delegation and seven days as an Air Force reservist. He has concluded that the surge is working as a result of his visit and service.

In an interview on FoxNews Sunday Graham fleshed out the details of the sixteen Shieks that were now working with us to secure the country. In comments to the Spartanburg Herald-Journal upon his return that we should know by early Fall about the will of the Iraqi people to control their country and that we needed the Patreus years ago. This cautious optimism after return is bolstered by his comment while on the delegation visit that Iraqis are resilient people. In his editorial "Progress and Losses in Iraq" Graham explains the gains he saw in Iraq on the recent visit. He pointed out that their was more cooperation with tribal leaders in Anbar Province and that thy were encouraging young people to join the Iraqi police force. He was allowed into areas that were previously off-limits while with the delegation.

He was assigned with the Rule of Law Task Force while serving his week of reserve duty. He saw cases brought before courts and saw upclose that nothing good happens without a price. The price in this case was an optimistic American Navy Commander that assisted in building a court house and then was killed by an IED.

He also reported a security problem at Camp Buca where Al-Queda detainees are held along with prisoners who are not dangerous. The prison was becoming a recruiting ground for the terroists, but there was a plan to deal with the probelm.

He concludes that while there is progress in Iraq we have a long way to go to complete the task.

Photo sources: AP and Air Force News Service.

More pictures of Senator Graham's trip to and service in Iraq

Graham Serves in Iraq

2007-04-11T07:54:00.001-07:00

A Senator usually visits Iraq for a few days as part of a congressional delegation and then returns stateside. They usually make their pronouncements about the situation from a political standpoint only. Sen. Graham is in a unique position being a United States Air Force Reserve Colonel and Judge Advocate.

Sen. Graham was a member of a recent delegation to Iraq with Sen. John McCain. He toured Iraq with the delegation on 1 and 2 April and then traded his casual clothes for desert camoflage. Sen. Graham served a week of active duty in Iraq with the Judge Advocate's office of the Multinational Force-Iraq.

Read Story

Sen. Graham Travels to Guantanamo to witness CSRT Hearing

2007-03-16T17:22:00.000-07:00

Source: New York Times

Saturday marked the first hearing of a Combat Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) at that was closed to the media. This was a pivotal hearing of Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM) the alleged mastermind of the September 11 attacks.

"I was responsible for the 9/11 operation form A-Z," Mohammed admitted as he gave his confession to the tribunal consisting of three military officers and with two United States Senators Lindsey Graham and Carl Levin watched via closed circuit TV.

Senators Graham and Levin were present to observe the process and report back about what happened. Graham was an architect of the Military Commissions Act which Levin voted against. They released a joint statement today that explained the process and said that it went well. However, they added that "the true test of the CSRT process is not a case in which the detainee admits the allegations against him, it is a case in which the detainee disputes those allegations. Judicial review of the tribunals is ongoing. We will continue to review the process and will explore possible ways to improve this process through Congressional action."

Graham challenges colleagues to act rather than talk on Iraq

2007-02-03T10:14:00.000-08:00

In comments to WCBD in Charleston Sen. Graham challenged his colleagues "political courage" because they are planning a vote a non-binding resolution that expresses their discontent with the 'surge' and urged them to "cheer them on" rather than cast a vote of "no confidence in Gen. Petraeus." He further said the vote would "empower our enemies, and be demoralizing to our own troops."

Graham Introduces Legislation to Honor General Francis Marion in Washington D.C.

2007-01-22T12:32:00.000-08:00

The legislation was first introduced in the 109th Congress be Joe Wilson (R) in the Congress, Lindsey Graham in the Senate and signed on to by the remainder of the state's delegation. This legislation would allow for a statue of General Francis Marion to be built in Marion Park, located at the intersection of E Street South Carolina Avenue in Washington, D.C. This legislation has been introduced in the Congress and Senate again.

109th: S. 2822, H.R. 5057
110th: S. 312, H.R. 497

The Congress passed the bill last session by voice vote, but never received a hearing and vote in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. H.R. 5057 has been reintroduced as HR. 497 and S. 2822 has been reintroduced as S. 312. The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources has placed the bill on their legislative calendar, but there is yet to be a hearing scheduled. H.R. 497 was referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources and has yet to be placed on the legislative calendar.

In comments to the Spartanburg Herald-Journal in 2006 Congressman Wilson said, "As a South Carolinian, I am proud his legacy has been honored with a memorial park in Washington, D.C. Yet I feel strongly that a statue of the Swamp Fox should be erected on its premises. Passage of this bill is a crucial first step in making this dream a reality."

General Francis Marion is counted in the lineage of the United States Army Rangers and used the forerunner of modern day guerilla warfare techniques during the Revolutionary War. Marion was a member of the South Carolina Provincial Congress and held a commission as a captain in the 2nd South Carolina Regiment. (Source: Wikipedia)

Graham Says Iraq on the Verge of Chaos

2006-10-24T09:11:00.000-07:00

In an AP interview Lindsey said

We're on the verge of chaos, and the current plan is not working

US and Iraqi officials need to be held accountable for the lack of progress and he said

All of them. It's their job to come up with a game plan

He has been calling for changes to the strategy since the begining operations in Iraq. He has criticized troop levels and has asked tough questions of leaders and never gotten satisfactory answers.

Graham serves in Afghanistan

2006-09-04T03:08:00.000-07:00

Sen. Graham is the only member of the National Guard or Reserves who serves in the U.S. Senate. He recently returned from a tour of duty in Afghanistan where he helped to train Afghan lawyers and judges.

Graham helps train Afghan Lawyers

Trying Terroists, Round 2

2006-06-16T13:54:00.000-07:00

John Yoo, a former top lawyer in the Bush administration, has a simple remedy for the Supreme Court decision striking down the military tribunals created for war crimes trials at Guantanamo. Congress, he says, should pass a law overruling the Supreme Court. From a legal point of view, that is not entirely implausible, and given the breadth of the court’s ruling, the administration may be tempted to try to show the court who’s boss.

But that would be a mistake. First, it’s a political loser: Even prominent Republican senators like John Warner of Virginia and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina have made it clear they think some changes are in order. Second, it would delay any trials indefinitely, until the courts can decide whether it’s constitutional–which it may not be.

No Nomination Games Being Played

2006-06-15T11:01:00.000-07:00

I agree that something needs to be done about the obstruction of judicial nominees, but what can be done so that we do not change to operation of the Senate? The “nuclear option” is no option at all becasue it will destroy the Senate.

Sen. Graham is blocking Mr. Haynes on principle becasue of his role in the torture scandal. No game here. Mr. Haynes wrote and endorsed the memos.

You bet that there would be cries of foul play if his election were moved up to tomorrow becasue it is not supposed to be until 2008. He is not supportive of nominees colling their heels fro years, but the one in question is problematic and there was some given up by the compromise.

The abuses have existed for a long time, but that does not mean we need a radical solution that makes irreversable changes.

I support the reforms because it would give all nominees of all presidents a fair vote, however, the Senators should have a right to block if there are substantial concerns, such as there are with Mr. Haynes.

I do not have a problem with knowing who is doing the blocking, however, a rules change should be done without the “nuclear option” and the Specter approach is a good start.

Response to “Lord on Judicial Nominations” on ConfirmThem.

Glad to be Lindsey Graham's Friend

2006-06-15T10:04:00.000-07:00

Paul at PowerLine is as disappointed in Sen. Graham’s lack of a response to the issue of weather he is blocking the Haynes nomination as he is in the senator's recent letter to conservative groups. The partisanship of the retired military officer does not matter as long as his concerns are valid. I am sure that Paul would be siging a different turn if this military officer were a partisan Republican. The other man mentioned, Mr. Guter is not incoherent just becasue he disagrees with a policy. If Mr. Haynes could not break from his ’superiors’ as General Counsel of DoD than it is right to question his indepedence as a judge when dealing with the cases that are sure to come before the court in the interceeding years.

Sen. Graham is relying on the testimony of former officers that either worked with Haynes or in the environment that Haynes created when he sold out his DoD position to go along with the Jusitce Department position. It is unfair to say that Sen. Graham is ignoring pro-Haynes viewpoints of the officer cited. If Maj. Gen. Michael Marchand would go in and talk to him or write a letter to him than He would consider his viewpoint as well.

He is talking about the JAG memos, which took him a year and one-half to get and they were classified for some unknown reason. He refers to these memos because they represented DoD policy and the concerns about the effect on the service men and women were valid. If the advice was followed than why couldn’t the Senator have them sooner? If they weren’t doing aything wrong why classify the opinion of the JAGs when the memos between Bybee, Haynes, Gonzales, and the other civilian lawyers were made public? Why did Secretary Rumsfeld later have to decertify some of the methods and why are we still dealing with this if he listened to their advice and the document addressed their concerns?

The argument that Sen. Graham did not consider the views of Maj. Gen. Roning or supoprters of Haynes is wrong because just the fact that he called someone that poisitively assessed Haynes is telling about his willingness to consider views contrary to his own and the critics.

The letter does not directly address the issue of his role in stopping the Haynes nomination, but conservatives have drawn the conclusion from the wording that he is the impediment. This is no surprise to me because he has said that there was one nominee that he would vote against and I think Haynes is that nominee. If the Haynes nomination goes through committee and to the floor there will be a filibuster and I would rather see Sen. Graham do everything in his power to preserve the civility and working order of the Senate.

No Enemies of Jim Haynes, Just people Asking Pertinent questions

2006-06-08T18:13:00.000-07:00

As Paul at PowerLineBlog points out Jim Haynes has his defenders who are also people who worked with him. If there is nothing wrong with him being a plaintiff against Secretary Rumsfeld in a case over abuses with the ACLU and being on the National Veterans for Kerry sterering committee, than why mentionthis becasue it is not relevant except as a tool to say look here’s a liberal who worked against the Presidnet in an election and was willing to work with the ACLU as a way to tarnish his argument and call it incoherent. He may say there is nothing wrong with this but it is enough to plant doubt in the minds of people who might have been willing to support the argument before that Haynes was unfit. This casts a political question that does not belong. I do not believe that this stuff would have even been mentioned if he had worked with say the ACLJ on a case or the Bush Veterans Committee.

Paul has also spoken with a former co-worker that says good things about Mr. Haynes. However, this alone does not take away the serious and important questions being raised by the retired officers, Sen. Graham, and Sen. McCain about his role in the torture scandal.

Why is it not a good enough reason for him to have been instrumental in writing and approving memos that may have contributed to the environment of the Abu Ghraib situation? To me and others this is enough. He may be a dedcated civil servant with the ability to serve on the vourt, however, the nomination is derailed not for political reasons, but for reasons of principle. We don;t torture and we should not condone or support it either. The Haynes nomination is a chance for us to make a conclusive statement about torture and the memos. It is no more disgusting that the nomination is held up than if it were a nominee you did not like who had the same background.

Lindsey Graham may have been blocking Haynes’ nomination, but he is doing so for a reason or principle, not because of politics. The Judiciary Committee is the place to stop an undesirable nominee. If you want him out of Committee so bad and believe he is being blocked get a majority of senators to sign discharge papers and move him out of committee without a vote. Lindsey is doing the honorable thing standing up for who the American people are and that we do not stand for torture even of terror suspects. He is not carrying water for John McCain, but standing on his own two feet. This is a risk for their political careers, but I contend that it is one worth taking. I do not live in South Carolina, but I write letters supporting the block becasue I feel it is the way that we best serve the country and keep the court room a quiet place where everyone can feel that they will recieve justice. The block is the honorable course. I think that the good people of South Carolina should lend moral support in his block of the Haynes nomination becasue of the torture issue. Lindsey is a fine public servant, but he does not support torture. This is his way of telling us that the president is not going to completely get his way and that is correct.

The Critics of Jim Haynes Aren't Incoherent

2006-06-07T20:21:00.000-07:00

I will listen to retired high ranking military officers who were JAG lawyers; Sen. Graham, a current JAG lawyer, and John McCain before I would listen to conservative activists about the nomination of Jim Haynes. Why? Because all these men have been lawyers who deal with the law of war or in John McCain’s case a former POW.

Lindsey Graham’s block on the Haynes nomination is standing for a principle that we have always stood for; we do not torture. They should be unhappy about his role with regard to the treatment of GITMO detainees and what happened at Abu Ghraib becasue it is contrary to our values as a nation.

If a retired admiral says that Haynes was unwilling to listen to the opinion of the JAG lawyers then it has credibility becasue he worked inside with him. It also has credibility becasue there was a mini war between the civilian Defense Department attorneys and the JAGs. This battle over detainee treatment calminated in a report by the JAGs and an evntual rescinding of some of the original tactics by the Secretary of Defense. Haynes’ job was to advocate for the policy based on Defense Department standards not those of the Justice Department becasue the military fights the war and know its laws.

Haynes, as the chief lawyer for DoD, would have had exclusive control of the legal envirnment that led to abuses at Abu Ghraib. Signing memos that allowed for inhumane treatment of detainees and tactics short of death would have contributed to this situation. Sexual humiliation did not have to appear on the list of approved tactics becasue anything short of death was approved.

Some of the decisions were not made by Haynes, but he could have stood up as a lawyer and said to whoever wanted to do these things, such as keeping people inperpetuity, that it couldn’t and shouldn’t be done.

Haynes was obliged to make sure the policy did not end up as it was in the first place. If he had done this he would be confirmed no problem. He may be an independent judge, but his involvement in the torture scandal and the memos is enough to disqualify him. It is also his job as Defense Department Counsel to argue for policies weather from Justice or not that are in keeping with the rules set down in the UCMJ, statutes, and treaties. He doesn’t get off the hook that easily.

I am sorry, I will take the word of admirals before I take the word of a law professor who had an arranged meeting with the nominee to discuss these issues in particular. The admirals worked with him at the time of the policy debate and the memo writing so they would have deeper insight into his true intent and mind. It is easy to show concern after the fact when you know you are being looked at for a court seat, but he may have showed no such concern at the time.

Lindsey Graham has been trying to prevent a vote on the merits because of the policy and the interest of the JAG lawyers not being listened to during the policy debate. Their concerns were completely ignored until we were caught with the abuses. Lindsey Graham is right, Haynes deserves to be blocked.

Response to “The Incoherence of Jim Haynes’ Critics” by Paul at PowerLineBlog

Lindsey Graham Doesn’t Disappoint Me

2006-05-26T12:56:00.000-07:00

Response to Mike Reino at SC6.

I started out volunteering for the Presidential campaign of John Edwards two years ago. I went to Iowa and Milwaukee as a volunteer. I cam home from one of these trips and I was watching the Senate on C-SPAN 2 when I happened across a specch by Lindsey Graham, who was the Jr senator from South Carolina at th time. The speech was about trade. I remembering who would dare present the unorthodox position that he did.

I have followed his Senate career for the last two years and have defended him every chance I get becasue I do plan to pattern myself after him. I like his style of hammering out compromises and tackling current and controversial issues head on without fear.

Inspite of the high praise I do sometimes wonder what he is thinkig, but it is just a disagreement to me and not a dispointment. There is much wrong with the Senate version of the immigration bill, however, I think his heart is in the right place. There is another problem with this issue besides the agency not being able to handle the influx and that is the executive department’s lax enforcement. Sen. Graham is only trying to assist in fixing a problem that the President could have fixed quickly with an executive order that demanded stepped up enforcement of existing law. The solution is not perfect, but that is why we have a conference committee.

I understand the perils of the immigration issues becasue I live in Chicago and have a difficult time finding employment because I don’t speak Spanish. I also understanfd that until we enforce the fines on employers for hiring illegals than we will have the problem.

I do think that Lindsey is caught up in the spirit of comproise as he tends to be because he wants the Senate to work together. It is unfortunate that John McCain and the rest you name are so derided. I do not think that Lindsey should be beat based on the Groupof 14 becasue we still got our judges. Did we really want to destry to Senate and change forever the way it works? I don’t. I like judicial compromise because it has given good judges positions. Some still won’t make it, but that is the process.

I do not think that the second is as plausible as the first. Lindsey made some of the most passionate and compassionate speeches I saw from anyone on this issue. I am sure he recieved som contributions from business interests, but so did all the senators. This is not as much the problem as his bleeding heart may be on the issue.

I am and always will be more like Lindsey Graham than Jim DeMint. I am still not a Fair Tax supporter and will remain a compromiser for the overall good.

Accused of Ducking the Vote

2006-05-24T18:04:00.000-07:00

A vote that shouldn’t be ducked

The Hill speculates, as I have, that Lindsey Graham is blocking the nomination of Jim Haynes to the Fourth Circuit, and that Graham’s good friend John McCain may also be involved. The notion is that McCain, who opposes Haynes because as General Counsel of Defense Department Haynes had a role with respect to the treatment of Guantanamo Bay detainees, would rather not have to vote against Haynes. By preventing Haynes from getting past the Judiciary Committee, Graham relieves his friend from having to cast that vote.

Source: PowerLine Blog

Haynes Should be Blocked from Being on the Court

2006-05-24T11:06:00.000-07:00

In a “Vote that Shouldn’t be Ducked” Paul at PowerLine accuses Sen. Graham of ducking a negative vote on the nomination of Jim Haynes for the Fourth Circuit by blocking the nomination from moving out of the Judiciary Committee. This is based on an article in The Hill newspaper that says Graham is blocking the nomination.

I do not agree that he is ducking the vote. He has counted the tea leaves and sees enough votes in Committee to approve the nomination and then on the floor to confirm him. The only way to prevent the battle over the policy at Guantonomo from heating up again is to block the nomination. This is a better course of action than participating in a filibuster which would be hypocritical.

Blocking Haynes a Good Move

2006-04-04T10:47:00.000-07:00

EdWhalen reports that “According to a very knowledgeable non-Senate source, the news is much worse for Fourth Circuit nominee William Haynes: Senator McCain is committed to stopping Haynes’s confirmation, and Senator Graham, as a favor to Senator McCain, will keep the nomination from being reported out of committee. If this news is accurate, it would appear that there is no hope for Haynes’s nomination.”

Paul at Power Line anlyzes this in the following manner: “

As I have argued, Haynes, an outstanding public servant, is being made the scapegoat for questionable legal advice provided by the Justice Department with respect to the interrogation of detainees. Haynes used that advice to provide guidance to the military, as he should have. If Haynes had provided legal advice inconsistent with the position of the Justice Department, he would have demonstrated a lawlessness that might constitute grounds for blocking his confirmation.

If McCain wants to punish an administration official for playing a key role in the development of our policy on interrogating detainees, a better target would be Attorney General Gonzales. The “offending” legal advice was prepared for Gonzales who then was the president’s counsel. Unlike Haynes, Gonzales arguably was in a position to cause the Justice Department’s position to be rejected.

But going after Gonzales would have injured McCain’s attempt to cast himself as a friend of the White House. Blocking Haynes, McCain must assume, carries no cost. And perhaps it doesn’t. But a pattern of these sorts of cynical calculations might.”

I do not think that Mr. McCain’s calculation is a cynical or wrong. Mr. Haynes could have protested more when the subject was discussed in meetings or argued against the memo once he received it, but he did neither, just implementing it until caught.

Mr. Graham has always said that their was one nominee he could not support and I have known that this was Haynes because of his role in the torture scandal. Blocking him for not disputing the legal advice of the justice department is a good move because he supports breaking the law passed to ban torture and might still support arguments to do so and thus allow the President’s signing statement to prevail in any argument over torture rather than the statute. This is bad for the country and the military.

Haynes has had an otherwise stellar career, but this one blemish is serious enough to derail the nomination as it should be. It is a question of law and not ideology for them to hash out. We should not be promoting someone who supports the violation of law regardless of his prior service.

Today's Alito News

2006-01-08T18:24:00.000-08:00

Sens. Lindsey Graham and Dianne Feinstein were on FoxNews Sunday to discuss the hearings for Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito. It was basically a one sided one issue interview. Feinstein controlled and abortion was discussed. It was not balanced. Sen. Graham did not get much time to respond, but on statements that the FoxNews audience agreed with.

Exciting and Frustrating Times

2005-06-29T22:20:00.000-07:00

I have been following and supporting Sen. Graham for a year now. Things are both frustrating and exciting. Frustrating because Social Security reform seems to be permanently stalled. Exciting because when Senators Reid and Frist met the other day his name came up as a potential nominee for the United States Supreme Court.First, the Supreme Court. Sen. Graham's name was mentioned as one of four compromise nominees when senators Reid and Frist met about the Supreme Court. This is exciting, but also evokes mixed feelings. Excitement because I could be watching someone I admire getting confirmed as a Justice on the Supreme Court.

There are mixed feeling present because it would mean he leave s the Senate. I would be sad but proud if this were to happen. However, it is not likely because President nominates. It is likely we will get whatever he wants, although, I hope he advises the Senate of the nominee.

Now, the frustration over Social Security reform. This initiative seems to be permanently stalled. The Republicans are focused on private accounts and the Democrats refuse to consider these accounts. It is frustrating because all the focus has been on the accounts even though Sen. Graham has brought up the key issue: solvency. The bill he has cosponsored (S. 1302) does not address this. His bill (S. 1878) from the last congress did. It was a lot tougher than either of us imagined.

Graham's Great Compromise: Nuclear Options and Judicial Filibusters

2005-05-24T09:55:00.000-07:00

Last night Senator Lindsey Graham assisted 13 colleagues in brokering a compromise to move the Senate forward from the debate on judicial nominations and be able to do America's business. He would have been a "yes" vote if the vote to change the rules occured. However, we have averted the vote for now.

This move by Sen. Graham infuriated groups like Focus on the Family and their affiliates. They wanted all the judges and no compromise. They called the compromise disaterous. However, Graham felt that it was important so we could get back to the business of the Senate. He acknowledged that people back home would be upset for a while and then would be happy about what gets done.

There is anger at the base. Callers to call-in shows such as C-Span's Washington Journal are saying that they will not forget and that they beleive he is a different man than he was during the impeachment of President Clinton. I would contend however that he has changed only a little to fit his new role as senator which requires more bipartisan compromise.

During the impeachment he was not as mean as the other managers. He also would have preferred a censure to the trial. Graham also got one of the Articles of Impeachment thrown out becasue ethically and legally, evidence that could not be used in the court should not be used in a Cogressional trial proceeding. He was perfectly reasonable although slightly more partisan because the House of Representatives is designed to operate by absolute majority.

However, in his two years in the Senate he has grown and therefore I beleive that he is a wonderful Senator. He works with colleagues to get the business of the people done. He has been part of bipartisan groups on many issues: Social Security reform, health care issue, and now judicial nominations and filibusters.

The request I have for my fellow Republicans in Illinois and South Carolina is that we accept and honor his independent decision although we may not agree. I know he will keep standing up to the pressure groups and doing what is right for all of America. I feel strongly that if we cannot except his independence and respect his feelings about what is best for the country than we do not deserve to have him as one of our leaders.

Choice Proposal: Social Security and Private Retirement Accouonts

2004-11-14T02:08:00.000-08:00

Proposals abound for fixing our Social Security system. Some want to leave it just the way it is, another group wants to require investment in private retirement and still others desire only to provide the option to invest in a private account. There are six bills in between the House and Senate (4 House, 2 Senate)that have not gotten a committee hearing yet. There is also a resolution in committee in the Senate to disallow consideration on any bill that includes Private Retirement Accounts as even an option for reform.

A thorough review of the proposals led me to conclude that the most insightful, innovative, best layed out reform plan was that proposed on 18 November 2003 by Senator Lindsey O. Graham (R-SC). Graham's bill (S. 1878) would allow for younger workers to take the option divert 4% points of their OASDI (old age, survivors and disability insurance) taxes into a Private Retirement Account (PRA) that would be much like the Thrift Savings Plan, in which all federal employees have the option to participate. There is a cap of $1300 on diverted funds. The remainder of the taxes would stay in the current system. For those who opt out of option 1 the remaining two options offer individuals the security of the traditional system with major differences. The second, like the first changes the benefits determination formula so that benefits are more in line with the CPI and wage growth, with PIA up to 120% of the poverty level and Incresing benefits of widows and widowers to about 75 % of what would be recived if both spouses were alive. The third option is the traditional system.

Current Beneficiaries would stay in the trditional system, while future benficiaries can choose any of the three options. However, beyond the age of 26 you are locked into the option you choose.

I feel that this plan is good because it provides options that will modernize our Social Security System and keep it solvent into the future. I also strongly beleive that Sen. Graham would never propose anything that would harm Social Security because his family depended on it to survive after his parents passed away. He comments are as follows:

"I was 22 and my sister was 13 when we lost both my parents. The illnesses were expensive and times were tough. My sister received Social Security survivors’ benefits so I know how important Social Security is to families. That’s why my commitment to the program is strong and unwavering.
" Introduction of the Social Security Solvency and Modernization Act

This personal experience only serves to strengthen his commitment to making sure that Social Security is there for each one of us into the future.No further action will be taken until after the election when this bill will be introduced again for debate.

President Bush's Reform Plan may be based on Sen. Graham's Proposal Social Security Solvency and Modernization Act

President Bush's Social Security Reform Plan may be based on Sen. Graham's Proposal

2004-11-14T01:03:00.000-08:00

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has a proposal to modernize Social Security and make it solvent in to the future and it may be the basis of President Bush's policy. The proposal, called the Social Security Solvency and Modernization Act, was originally introduced late in 2003. It languished in the Senate Finance Committee because of more pressing concerns, like National and Homeland Security. However, it will be reintroduced sometime early next year after the swearing in of the 109th Congress.

The proposal grants younger workers the option of investing 4% (up to $1300) of their SS payroll taxes into a private account in the Thrift Savings Plan, a government guaranteed program. This option also allows younger people to have increased survivors benefits if something should happen to their parents and the earnings or losses from the private accoount will be offset by the benefits recived form th 96% of the taxes not invested in the account.

The second option, which also applies to middle age workers, has no private account, but provides the increased survivors benefits and current law SS benefits.

The third option provides only current law benfits. Anyone can opt for this, however, current beneficiaries will stay in the current law system.

This plan is well thought out and comprehensive. It addresses both the issue of modernization (private accounts) and solvency. Who better than Sen. Graham to address this issue. His parents passed away when he was 22 and his sister was 13. His sister survived because of survivor's benefits. He would do nothing to harm this program. He is showing leadership on this issue and is sure to raise his national profile by being a surrogate on many news shows.

More Info
The Social Security Solvency and Modernization Act (Summary)
Social Security Social Security Solvency and Modernization Act
Choice Proposal: Social Security and Private Retirement Accounts