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.
Any politician from any party who uses the words 'trust fund' when speaking about Social Security is either a liar or a fool and is most likely both.
Any reporter, columnist, opinion writer, or pundit who uses the words 'trust fund' when speaking about Social Security is either a liar or just plain stupid; but is most likely both.
So let's review:
There is no 'trust fund'.
There never has been a 'trust fund'.
There never will be a 'trust fund'.
L
Oh......my.......God.......
(shaking head at the unbelievable stupidity of such a statement....)
L
Yes. The government is already investing social security money by buying bonds.
You would be correct, except for one minor thing: They're not investing it, they're spending it.
And, yes, that makes "raiding" accurate.
"Yea" is the proper vote on this question.
Unless you're a liberal...
"Yea" is the proper vote on this question.
Unless you're a liberal...
Reagan raised the SS contribution to create the "surplus" to pay for baby boomer benefits. That also shifted the tax burden to the 80% that pay more for SS than they do in income taxes.
Be consistent!
When a corporation issues and sells stock, what do you think they do with the money? Bury it in the parking lot? They spend it.
Hmm...mostly Democrats wanted to raid the fund...I thought they wanted to "protect" the funds?
That does nothing whatsoever to help the seniors who've put their money into the scheme all this time. As for everyone else, they should be left to do with their own money whatever they judge fit. It is not the federal government's job to watch over them and make sure they make the right decisions in life.
What happened to Al Gore's LOCK BOX!!
No, they invest it -- in plant, capital equipment, etc.
Government spending on entitlements does not constitute "investment".
Not so. Congress and Reagan were forced to pass P.L. 98-21, (H.R. 1900) Social Security Amendments of 1983-Signed on April 20, 1983 because we were paying out more in SS benefits than we were collecting in taxes. The USG had to come up with the money to pay off some of the IOUs in the SSTF, which had to be used to fund the shortfall. SS was in crisis in 1983.
If you read the 1983 legislation, you will see that it does far more than increase SS taxes. It raises the retirement age to 67. It makes it mandatory that all new Federal employees join SS starting in 1984. It eliminates windfall Social Security benefits for workers who are first eligible after 1985 for both a pension from non-covered employment and Social Security retirement or disability benefits.
"Social Security tax rates (which include the Hospital Insurance tax rates) for employers and employees will increase to 7.0 percent in 1984, {1} 7.05 percent in 1985, 7.15 percent in 1986-87, 7.51 percent in 1988-89 and 7.65 percent in 1990 and thereafter."
"Beginning in 1984, includes up to one-half of Social Security benefits as taxable income for taxpayers whose adjusted gross income, combined with half their benefits and any tax-exempt interest they may have exceeds $25,000 for a single taxpayer and $32,000 for married taxpayers filing jointly. Benefits received by married taxpayers filing separately are taxable without regard to other income. Appropriates amounts equal to estimated tax liability to the Social Security trust funds."
"Changes the earnings test for beneficiaries age 65 and over so that $1 in benefits will be withheld for each $3 of earnings above the annual exempt amount, beginning in 1990."
"Raises the age of eligibility for unreduced retirement benefits in two stages to 67 by the year 2027. Workers born in 1938 will be the first group affected by the gradual increase. Benefits will still be available at age 62, but with greater reduction."
What happened in 1983 was a travesty and an act of cowardice by our political leadership. It was supposed to solve the problem of SS for another 70 years. Yet, 23 years later it is apparent that the system is unsustainable and something must be done prior to 2017 or we will be back in the same situation as 1983, i.e., more money going out then coming in. The retiring baby boomers and fewer workers per retiree make the situation much worse than 1983. We need a permanent solution to make SS viable. Personal accounts must be part of the solution to reduce the future USG liability, which now stands at over $12 trillion.
The reason more than 80% of Americans pay more in OASDI taxes than income taxes is that the SS income cap goes up every year faster than actual wages and a reduction in the income tax rates for families earning below $50,000. Approximately one-half of Americans pay no income tax at all. However, in reality, SS is an income tax under a different name. The revenues collected go into the general fund to be used for any purpose, albeit with commensurate IOUs placed into a mythical SSTF, which represents a liability to the USG and American people.
That is if you can retire, because the politicians will just raise taxes inorder to pay for social security and the bloated federal debt.
They need to put it up again without the third clause. That's the privatization clause, and Dems have lots of talking points against it.
Given their disagreement with "privatization" a much simpler law without that would be a more interesting vote.
Are Crapo et all really trying to build the "lock box" that Al Gore supported, or are they just playing political ping pong. Tying a very contraversial measure with a common sense one to demonize opponents is just gamesmanship. It's nice to see the R's learn how to do this but they are the majority party (for a few weeks still) and are supposed to fix things not just grandstand.
I'm pretty sick of the lot of them.
They are liabilities and assets.
And the "investment" in you etc. never includes CEO bonuses, conferences at 5 star hotels, meals, company credit cards, and first class travel? What about golden parachutes and "retirement" packages for upper management? Benefit packages, vacations and sick leave. Corporate contrabutions to 401ks, stock options?
No, capital costs are never as you list above.
You're not an accountant, are you? Items which qualify as "investment" are very specific...and quite limited.
Sorry, Lucy. They are liabilities for the American people. That is the bottom line. You can't write yourself an IOU and call it an asset.
The proceeds from stock offered for public sale by corporations can be used to pay off debts. The money raised through stock sales doesn't have to be paid back and often has fewer restrictions on company activity than other means of raising money. Or it can be used for any business expense.
The proceeds can also be used to pay the expense of the offering itself.
It also provides liquidity, potentially a way for venture capital to make a profit on its investment and as a means of compensating those who are granted options.
The idea that proceeds go strictly for "investment in plant, capital equipment, etc" (I have no idea what etc means to you in the context), is not true.
When one buys stock in a company one hopes it is an investment, but it is also a gamble.
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.