Candidates 'dodging' Social Security
July 31st 04:47:48 PM
In the August 6 issue of Newsweek, Robert Samuelson takes the presidential candidates to task for not addressing Social Security reform. He writes, "If you haven't noticed, the major presidential candidates–Republican and Democratic–are dodging one of the thorniest problems they'd face if elected: the huge budget costs of aging baby boomers." Samuelson's idea is to put together in one big book reform proposals from six different D.C.-based think tanks. "If published in April, the book might prod the presidential candidates to address the future," he theorizes. It is tough to believe that the candidates are avoiding talk of reform because they don't understand the options on the table, yet Samuelson's general idea here is correct -- we need to apply pressure to the candidates in order to get them to come forward with a specific approach. We have been too tolerant of politicians who do not address the problems in Social Security, and we cannot allow candidates for our nation's highest office to avoid going on record in support of a specific plan. To learn more about where each candidate stands, visit our voter guide here.
Posted by Ryan Lynch
Comments
First off: I wish to thank the folks at Secure Our Future. Org for their attention to detail and for presiding such qualified information for the American voter. Keep up the good work people.
I am copying the information provided by Secure Our Future pertaining to the present group of Presidential Candidates who have declared in order to clearly illustrate their position[s] on this very important issue.
While I have not yet declared my political intent officially, my position on this issue is simple. Keep government officials away from the ability to take funds out of the program. But for Congress continually stealing money from the money collected for Social Security to fund their favorite pork barrel project, there would certainly be enough money there foe the next generation.
My position, were I elected, would be to use the monies collected for Social Security to purchase 20 year United States Savings Bonds. These would be made available to the citizen through whatever procedure utilized. Those who cash these in early can only receive the cash value. By using a 20 year date, people will have these funds available should they need them before retirement or they can re-invest these funds into their own saving or investment plan. The critical issue I see, looking from my stated position of getting America out of debt in 5 years, is that Americans are re-investing in Americas’ future.
A friend called and we discussed this post. The question was: Why don’t you officially declare. My answer is this. Unless and until I see a desire from Americans to have someone in the White House who can address all the relevant issues: From Social Security to the Terrorists and the war on terror, I probably will not. I do however; provide my 2008 Presidential Campaign Platform for any who would desire to see it. [myspace.com/texaslonghauler]
These below are the statements provided by Save Our Future. Please notice that the only Candidate who has declared that has a concrete idea is Republican Ron Paul. [I am a Democrat folks, but the issue is more important than politics.]
Republicans
Senator Sam Brownback: "I am committed to fighting for comprehensive Social Security reform with large personal investment accounts..."
Rudy Giuliani: Former mayor of New York City: "When we give you more control over your Social Security, we move forward, because as a group of three hundred million people, you're going to make better choices than the government bureaucrats."
Mike Huckabee: Former governor of Arkansas: "He would head off a 'Social Security train wreck' by getting workers engaged in planning their own retirement with a combination of Social Security and personal accounts."
Duncan Hunter: Congressman from California: "Has not offered [a] specific proposal to keep Social Security solvent."
Senator John McCain: Senator from Arizona "I favor strongly retirement savings accounts, personal savings accounts, whatever you want to call them. And I think every young taxpayer should have the ability to make an investment in their own retirement
Ron Paul: Congressman from Texas: "Under my bill, HR 219, your Social Security contributions are set aside in an interest-bearing account and cannot be spent. In other words, your Social Security account would be treated as YOUR account and not a slush fund for Congress."
Mitt Romney: Former governor of Massachusetts: "Take some of that money, or all of that surplus money, and allow people to have a personal account, so they can invest in things that have a higher rate of return than just government debt...Personal accounts would be a big plus."
Tom Tancredo: Congressman from Colorado: "Younger workers must be empowered to invest a portion of their payroll taxes into private accounts..."
Democrats
Senator Joe Biden: Senator from Delaware: "If you want to help private savings for young people, let's talk about private accounts on top of Social Security, instead of in place of Social Security or in place of part of Social Security."
Senator Hillary Clinton: Senator from New York: "The risky scheme to privatize would...undermine the promise of Social Security."…
• "Today's report from the Social Security Trustees shows once again that the program relied upon by tens of millions of Americans is not in crisis, that the financial challenges facing the system are manageable, and even shows improvement in the long-range health of the system. While the Administration has used previous Trustees reports to portray Social Security as unsustainable and to push for privatization of the system, today's report reiterates evidence from recent years' Trustees reports that Social Security is affordable and sustainable. Taking money out of the Social Security system for private accounts would only exacerbate the system's financial challenges."
- Senator Clinton press release, April 23, 2007
• "Social Security is one of the greatest inventions in American democracy, and I will do everything possible to protect and defend it, starting with getting back to fiscal responsibility, instead of borrowing from the Social Security trust fund...The risky scheme to privatize would cost between $1 and $2 trillion. That would undermine the promise of Social Security."
- NY 2006 Senate Debate, October 21, 2006
Credit: On The Issues
• Flip Flop Alert
When Senator Jim DeMint introduced to the 2007 Senate Budget Resolution an amendment that would have prevented further borrowing from the trust fund, Clinton voted against it. DeMint's amendment would not have steered the money into personal accounts; it simply would have prevented surplus Social Security funds from being spent on other government programs. So while Clinton talks about protecting the surplus, she voted to continue the raid on the Social Security trust fund.
- U.S. Senate Legislation and Records, March 22, 2007
Senator Chris Dodd: Senator from Connecticut "Certainly, we have no ideas, and I would be totally opposed to the privatization of Social Security."
John Edwards: Former senator from North Carolina: "I oppose diverting payroll taxes to private accounts..."
The New Hampshire Project: Do you have any thoughts on moving the cap on Social Security which would prevent it from having to be privatized?
Edwards: She's saying do I have any thoughts on removing the cap on payroll taxes. I don't know if all of you know this, but basically there is an income cap. And above that cap, $96,000-97,000, if you earn many millions of dollars a year, then above that income cap you don't pay Social Security tax. So what she is asking is if you lift the cap you generate more revenue and help secure Social Security.
I haven't proposed it but I think it makes a lot of sense. The question I have is whether you should just lift the cap or whether you should create some bubble above the cap. For example, for the first $97,000 you are already paying taxes, and then above that to the first $150,000 or $170,000 you don't pay taxes, and then anything above that you do. That's the question I have. Because there are a lot of people earning $100,000-$150,000 where both couples work and send their kids to college and so forth, and they still have trouble paying their bills. We don't want to make taxes higher on them if we can help it. But the people who are earning millions of dollars a year, they ought to be paying payroll taxes.
So the bottom line for me is: I think yes, doing something about the cap makes a great deal of sense. The only question I have is whether we should it is lifted entirely, which may be the thing to do, or if we should make some bubble above the present existing cap and then lift it above that line.
Statements on Reform
• "We have a few decades to deal with Social Security...[T]here are a number of tools available to us, but I think about this in a very personal way. I mean, I've watched my own father, who worked in a mill all his life, and what happened when he was ready to retire and become eligible for Social Security. So things like raising the retirement age, taking away benefits from people like my father who have worked all their lives and are entitled to that -- in my judgment, we've made them that promise -- are not acceptable...
"I think there are alternative things we could do. There is now a cap on the income that's available for taxing for purposes of Social Security, and I think we could raise that cap to generate a larger stream of revenue. We might need, though, to create a bubble above it, because the cap is eighty-some-odd thousand dollars right now, and basically if you just lifted cap, you would hit a lot of people who are very much in the middle class. So what you could do is create a bubble above that and then start lifting the cap, so that you get revenue. For example, you could go from eighty-five or ninety thousand up to two hundred thousand, no additional tax, and then above two hundred thousand you're taxed on your income.
"So those are options, and I think the bottom line on Social Security is it's so politically radioactive, and it's very hard to get anything done, that what I would do as president is I would implement the things I said about Medicare, which I think the president with the acquiescence of Congress could do immediately. Then I would bring together the best people on both sides of the aisle to try to put together something that could be done with Republicans and independents and Democrats to deal with the Social Security problem."
- Conversation With John Edwards, WMUR March 9, 2007
• "I oppose diverting payroll taxes to private accounts but support offering matching accounts to workers on top of Social Security. I oppose raising the retirement age or cutting COLAs."
- Presidential National Political Awareness Test, March 3, 2004
Credit: On the Issues
• "Privatizing a portion of Social Security would cost the Social Security Trust Fund more than $1 trillion, making it even harder for us to meet our responsibilities to our seniors. This kind of step would also erode the most basic guarantee of Social Security, exposing millions of Americans to an impoverished retirement.
"But I do support efforts to increase retirement savings outside of Social Security. I've proposed matching $1 in private savings with up to a $1 refundable tax credit, up to a limit of $1,000 per couple, for Americans with low and moderate incomes... "
- Associated Press, February 25, 2004
• Brian Williams: Senator Edwards, can the stock market be a component of the Social Security retirement system?
Edwards: No, I don't believe it can.
- Debate at Pace University, September 25, 2003
Mike Gravel: Former senator from Alaska: "No tax increases, we don't need them. All we've got to do is stop the Congress from raiding the $200 billion a year in the surplus and let it go in the fund where it should."
Dennis Kucinich: Congressman from Ohio: "I want everyone to understand this, that Social Security is rock solid through the year 2042 without any changes whatsoever. As president, I'll see to it that there will be no privatization.
Senator Barack Obama: Senator from Illinois: "Everything should be on the table [with Social Security] ... [but] privatization is not something that I would consider."
Governor Bill Richardson: Governor of New Mexico: "The first thing I would do is stop raiding the Social Security trust fund."
Posted by Cecil L. Russell on August 15th 01:28:30 AM
|
