Posted on 03/18/2006 3:04:56 PM PST by eeevil conservative
53 Senators vote to raid the Social Security trust fund
Yesterday, Senators Jim DeMint and Mike Crapo introduced an amendment to prevent the current Social Security Surplus from continuing to be spent. 53 Senators voted against it.
After the vote, DeMint issued the following statement:
Details about the amendment via a DeMint press release are in the extended section.“Sadly, fifty-three senators turned their backs on America’s seniors,” Senator DeMint said. “There is simply no way to save Social Security if we don’t have the courage stop using the surplus as a secret slush fund. I’m thankful there were forty-six senators who stood with America’s seniors to end the raid. We will not be deterred by cynics who offer no solutions.”
“Those who voted against this amendment voted to raid Social Security,” said Senator DeMint. “Now, every senator will be on record whether they oppose or support the raid. This said absolutely nothing about personal accounts, it was about whether you believe Social Security should be saved or allowed to wither on the vine.”
UPDATE: Pasted below are the 53 Senators who voted to raid the fund -- Republicans who should no better are in bold. Click here to see the whole breakdown.
Akaka (D-HI) Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Biden (D-DE) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Burns (R-MT) Byrd (D-WV) Cantwell (D-WA) Carper (D-DE) Chafee (R-RI) Clinton (D-NY) Collins (R-ME) Conrad (D-ND) Dayton (D-MN) Dodd (D-CT) Domenici (R-NM) Dorgan (D-ND) Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Feinstein (D-CA) Harkin (D-IA) Inouye (D-HI) Jeffords (I-VT) Johnson (D-SD) Kennedy (D-MA) Kerry (D-MA) Kohl (D-WI) Landrieu (D-LA) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Lieberman (D-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) Lugar (R-IN) Menendez (D-NJ) Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE) Obama (D-IL) Pryor (D-AR) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Salazar (D-CO) Sarbanes (D-MD) Schumer (D-NY) Smith (R-OR) Snowe (R-ME) Stabenow (D-MI) Talent (R-MO) Wyden (D-OR)
The current Social Security system allows Congress to spend the Social Security surplus on other government programs. Including interest, Congress has raided $1.7 trillion from Social Security since 1985. The surplus now only consists of IOU’s stacked in a vault in West Virginia that can only be paid back by raising taxes or cutting spending.
The DeMint-Crapo Amendment to Stop the Raid on Social Security would have allowed the Senate to pass legislation with the following requirements:
· Social Security surpluses must be used to help pay for future benefits
· That it make no changes to the benefits of those Americans born before January 1, 1950
· That it provide a voluntary option for younger Americans to obtain legally binding ownership of a portion of their benefits.
They are only worthless if the government defaults.
Do you think we pay interest on the 9 trillion dollar debt? We do, and the interest alone is 7% of the budget (good thing interest rates are low). Do you object to interest paid to the Chinese?
In 2017 we will start borrowing to pay the benefits.
That's because we have borrowed the money from the SS surplus rather than raise money from other sources. Other sources could be government owned business (that's a socialist thing to do), raise taxes, selling government bonds, borrowing from the IMF, etc. Unless the budget is balanced, we are borrowing money from somewhere. Social Security is not the problem, irresponsible government spending is the problem.
We don't KNOW. If you live 20 years after retirement, you'd make out like a bandit on SS.
If your best argument against prvate accounts is fees and comission you have no argument..in fact it sounds like youd be against 401ks or IRAs for that matter.
How did Enron employees make out on their 401ks? (I know you're too smart to ever make their mistake.)
IRAs and 401s are in addition to Social Security and do not replace it. I think people should take advantage of any savings or investment plan that they choose to provide for their retirement.
Absolutely shrink it. There would be less money for the federal govt to spend. That is shrinking it.
Really? Didn't we just have a demonstration this week that being out of money is no deterrent to spending?
1. envy of those who earn comissions
Oh please! The attractiveness to the individual for diverting some FICA money into individual accounts is the possibility that the investment yield will be higher than SS. If fees, commissions, etc. reduce yield sufficiently to wipe out the advantage, then what's the point?
That has nothing to do with envy, it has to do with weighing potential benefits.
2. distrust of allowing people to control their retirement destiny
Why do you think Social Security was created in the first place?
Don't feel too bad. I bet these votes would have been different had it not been an election year.
>I am instead creating my own social security, already investing in long term stocks and funds,....<
You are right. In your case I was out of line with the
"instant gratification" description. What threw me off was your phrase, "I don't care". When I think of the multitudes who depend on Social Security, I do care. Sorry and good for you!
What is the difference anyway? Isn't it all spent anyway?
I prefer "none of the above". I prefer cutting the federal government down to the legitimate constitutional position, thus freeing up billions of tax dollars to go back to the taxpayers.
I haven't put a whole lot of research into the subject, but I would imagine the federal debt could be retired in less than a decade (and likely quicker) if the feds only spent what is constitutional....
these arguments are so easy to shoot down, it isnt even a challenge.
""We don't KNOW. If you live 20 years after retirement, you'd make out like a bandit on SS.""
two things wrong with this...one) this is true for current retirees,not for those who are going to retire in 20-30 years as SS become more more negative the younger you are...two) if is the big word here..if, well if you dont live long SS is a huge rip off..with personal accounts you can bequeth them to your heirs
""How did Enron employees make out on their 401ks? (I know you're too smart to ever make their mistake.)""
Demogoguery of the first degree here. Enron employees could only invest in Enron shares. Again I must repeat myself, no indivudual shares would be invested in, only funds.
"Why do you think Social Security was created in the first place?"'
supplemt retirement, no provide for it. Agsin you seem blind to the fact that it is going bankrupt and that a 1935 program no longer serves its function as it was originanly construncted..if you want it to survive, and it sounds like you do, youll pull your head out from out of the and accept some changes that give workers a higher rate of return...yuor solution of higher taxes and cutting benefits just makes SS a negative rate of return program
""You know, that kind of sounds like you might be expecting the nanny state to supervise your investment choices and take responsibility for the safety of your investment dollars.""
you think personal accounts are less of a nanny state than what we've got now....youre promoting the conservative case against SS reform...give it up
""You'd think by now that most amerikans would no there's no such thing as a social security trust fund.""
but it is really easy for people to demogogue
""The surplus is expected to see us through to 2041.""
that's if there was a real surplus, but there isnt
Is it not amazing that the majority of those voting against protecting Social Security are of the same party that used a "Social Security Lock Box" as a campaign platform just a few years back. The same party that absolutely blasts the Republicans for "raiding the trust fund", and the same party that claims to care for seniors and the "less fortunate".
Of course, they are also of the same party against any privatization of SS....
I would hope that everyone here who is "represented" by one of these slugs would save this info for use in the next election in your state.
I agree. Let them expose themselves for the thieving bastards that they are and then make their next term 20 to life in a federal prison cell.
I would hope that everyone here who is "represented" by one of these slugs anti-freedom, anti-life members of The Democratic Crime Syndicate would save this info for use in the next election in your state.
Not one freedom-fighter among the 'rats. Telling...isn't it.
Thanks for your comparison chart and thanks to all of the contributors to this thread.
Exactly. The whole SSTF is a sham. All it means is that the USG will support the SS program. If the system isn't changed then benefits will have to be reduced. We would be far better off including SS into the annual budget process and not maintaining the charade that it is a separate entity. We should pattern it after the Medicare B.
Do you think we pay interest on the 9 trillion dollar debt? We do, and the interest alone is 7% of the budget (good thing interest rates are low). Do you object to interest paid to the Chinese?
We pay interest on the publicly held debt. The interest paid on the intragovernmental portion is on paper only and not part of the federal budget.
The publicly-held debt amounts $4.8 trillion and the intragovernmental debt (OASDI among other trust funds) is about $3.5 trillion. The Debt to the Penny and Who Holds It
Approximately 17 cents out of every dollar of total tax revenue collected is immediately used merely to pay the burgeoning interest on the Federal debt. It is much more than 7% and it is growing every year. How Does the National Debt Affect Me?
I have no objection to foreign investment in UST-bills, including by the Chinese. It gives us more capital to expand our economy.
That's because we have borrowed the money from the SS surplus rather than raise money from other sources. Other sources could be government owned business (that's a socialist thing to do), raise taxes, selling government bonds, borrowing from the IMF, etc. Unless the budget is balanced, we are borrowing money from somewhere. Social Security is not the problem, irresponsible government spending is the problem.
SS taxes are a better source of money than borrowing it through the sale of government bonds, which are also a liability except that the holders expect to receive interest (read real money)on their investment. Raising taxes will hurt the economy and lower tax revenues.
I agree that spending needs to be restrained, but the entitlement programs, SS, Medicare and Medicaid, are now the biggest threat to our future well-being as a nation. They are on automatic pilot and consuming more and more of the federal budget. We cannot sustain these entitlement programs as currently structured even if we cut all discretionary spending including Defense spending. Some factoids.
Social Security pays more than $450 billion in benefits each year. If nothing is done, by 2060, the combination of Social Security and Medicare will account for more than 71 percent of the federal budget.
Social Security faces an unfunded liability of more than $12.8 trillion
"Saving" Social Security without individual accounts could require a 50% increase in Social Security taxes or a 27% cut in benefits.
In 1950, there were 16 workers paying Social Security taxes for every retired person receiving benefits. Today there are 3.3. By 2030, there will be only 2.
Nearly 80% of Americans pay more in Social Security taxes than they do in federal income tax.
By 2030, there will be 70 million Americans of retirement age--twice as many as today.
In 1980 the annual contribution and benefit base (cap) was $25,900. In 1990, it was $51,300. In 2000 it was $76,200. In 2006 it is $94,200. Medicare contributions have no income cap.
In 1966 when Medicare started, the employer and employee shares totaled 6.1% of taxable earnings. Today that rate is 15.3%.
The politicians have been using SS as a cash cow and a way to raise taxes without the public being aware of it. Did you ever wonder why SS is running a "surplus?"
Medicare is in even worse shape.
You have to fund today's seniors though, which is why SS should be gradually phased out. Force younger workers to invest a minimum of 10% annually into their own private IRA, and give middle-aged workers to opt out of the program completely in exchange for having what they put into the system rolled over into an IRA or 401(k). Dump it entirely and you'll see rioting and anarchy in the streets.
Boxer and Fienstein voted to raid. I'm shocked.
Well sonny boy, that's where you are wrong. You will get back every penny you put into Social Security. Every penny.
Of course a Micky D's cheeseburger will cost $10,000, but you will get back every penny, 100¢ on the dollar...
It is difficult to understand how 53 Senators can be so dense as to believe there is a Social Security trust fund.
The only possible defence of such blatent stupidity is the off chance that they have donated their brain to science and scientist collected the donation sooner than the Senators had expected.
Nor wil I be voting for either NC Sleezator, next time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
