53 Senators vote to raid the Social Security trust fund

TownHall.com ^ | 3/17/06 | Tim Chapman

[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:

“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.”

Details about the amendment via a DeMint press release are in the extended section.

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.

[goodnesswins]

Republican's ALL voted YEA.....Democrats ALL voted NEA.....I'm confused. Something tells me there is more to this than we are seeing....

[Clintonfatigued]

Evan Bayh and Richard Lugar voted against the amendment.

[goodnesswins]

"Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I yield the time on this side to the Senator from Montana."

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President my colleagues are not being fooled. This is privatization of Social Security. Turn to page 29, paragraph 3. It so provides.

We have already gone down the road on privatization of Social Security.

The so-called surplus that the Senator referred to is just to privatize Social Security.

The American public said no to privatizing Social Security. The President has realized that it is a bad idea. The Congress should realize it. It is a bad idea. The AARP sure knows it is a bad idea. I have a letter from the AARP. Let me read from it. They say:

AARP strongly opposes this attempt to resurrect a proposal that the American public has soundly rejected.

This is privatization of Social Security, pure and simple. The Senate should reject it as the American people have rejected it.

I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the RECORD. There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: [snippage] ...

[goodnesswins]

see post 83.....I think YOU would have wanted YEA votes on this....IF I'm reading it correctly.

[tioga]

I half expected the ambitious hillary, my junior senator, to have stopped herself, but NO, she voted to spend it now. Won't hurt her retirement, she already stole enough for that.

[pickrell]

"...Until someone explains what the bill was really supposed to do, I view this as just a publicity stunt and probably the 45 that voted against it are the worst kind of politicians..."

I'll do my best. The surplus money collected from our paychecks is currently being used to fund an orgy of overspending that will devastate this country financially in a very few years.

Many on this forum, as well as I, have proposed that this money be put into an actual investment fund, rather than the farce of a huge drawer full of government IOU's.

If this money was used to fund FANNIE MAE mortgages, where homeowners will not only repay it, but actually pay REAL interest on the money, then FANNIE MAE would not be lending out money that instead increasingly comes from Arab and other foreign investors.

The huge amount of home loan interest being paid by American homeowners would not, therefore, flow out of the country to the pockets of hostile investors, but would rather begin to multiply through the force of compounding, into a fund which would ACTUALLY be able to provide retirement income.

I believe that if Americans knew that a constantly increasing amount of the home loan money in this country is coming from overseas, and the loans provided (and the risk undertaken by the Arab lenders) is guaranteed by our tax dollars, while at the same time our politicians mandate that the same opportunity CANNOT be made available to our own citizens... a pitchforks and torches moment would immediately ensue.

Imagine that the $400 to $600 you pay in Social Security every month, funded home mortgages such as the one in which you are paying that $ 800 or so for, each month. You would be in effect paying yourself all of the interest. And each month that you continue paying into the account, that you, and millions of other Americans would be bundling that money into yet more loans to Americans, who would add interest to that investment pool.

What absolute meatheads we all are to have let the powers to be tell us that we cannot have a REAL investment retirement program, because that would drain away the extra money that Senator Byrd needs to build yet more concrete monuments to himself.

By the time people wise up, we will no longer own this country.

[mickie]

Pa.'s two Senators voted against.

The one that everyone loves to hate....Sen. Specter.
And no surprise......Sen. Santorum.

[Txsleuth]

How come when I tried to post that...it showed up that it was no longer available.

Did you click the link I posted on this thread?? That is pretty much what it said...

I get so frustrated that I can't seem to be able to figure out how to post this stuff...when I find it.

Glad to have you around to help!!! Thank you, again.

[Wolverine]

I do not really care. I am young enough social security will have long collapsed by the time I retire.

If you owned your contribution...under President Bush plan:

Get Smart		Don't Get Screwed
Personal Accounts		Security Net
(New Social Security)		(Old Social Security)

 

$30/hr

100% Privatized The "New Social Security"

New Social Security ALL 12.4% Payroll Tax Privatized							Mid-Range
Old Social Security Scrapped for 22 year olds							Salary
Hourly wage							$30/Hour
Weekly wage (40 Hours)							$           1,200
Monthly wages (52 weeks/12 months)							$           5,200
Yearly Wage							$         62,400
Less; Wages in excess of $90,000 cap
Wages subject to Social Security							$         62,400
Social Security Taxes paid
By employee		6.20%					$           3,869
By employer		6.20%					$           3,869
Total Social Security Taxes							$           7,738
Taxes Paid ( 22 to 67 Years of age) 45 yrs							$       348,192
Compound Interest (or growth) at 6%							$    1,438,754
	Total "Nest Egg" at 67						$    1,786,946
1. If you die at 67, nest egg willed to family
	New Social Security						$    1,786,946
	Old Social Security						$                 -
		Advantage-The New Social Security					$    1,786,946
2. Monthly Check if you live off 6% interest
	New Social Security						$           8,935
	Old Social Security pays (1)						$           1,786
		Advantage-The New Social Security					$           7,149
Amount that can still be willed at death							$    1,786,946

Check Out Other Comparisons Here

 

http://www.thenewsocialsecurity.com/6.75.html

http://www.thenewsocialsecurity.com/30.html

http://www.thenewsocialsecurity.com/75.html

I do not really care. I am young enough social security will have long collapsed by the time I retire.

[Cboldt]

How come when I tried to post that...it showed up that it was no longer available.

The "Thomas" web site has myriad directions for obtaining its information. Some of the links are durable, others are temporary. The temporary ones will have the phrase "temp" somewhere in the URL. You posted a temporary URL.

I figured the place to look for the debate from the date and the name of the sponsor of the amendment. From there I got the amendment number, and from there "durable" links fell into place.

[winner3000]

(Yes. The government is already investing social security money by buying bonds.)

I don't think that's how this works. This is my understanding: The money comes in generating an IOU. Some of it pays for current social security benefits to retired people. The excess is spent on current governmental expenditures (this could be anything). I don't believe any T-Bills or bonds are issued against the use of this money.

[sgtyork]

You're a genius!

[Txsleuth]

Let me ask you this....do you consider this amendment by DeMint...to be on par with the one that Domenici filed, in order to get language into the Budget Resolution..that could make way for drilling in ANWR?

IOW..basically a "stunt" to get the language that Bush wanted regarding an option for people to use some of their money going to Social Security into a private account?

Or, was just a way to for the Finance Committee to have wiggle room in dealing with the Social Security funds...without having to waive a budget act??

I am not sure if I am making my questions clear enough for you to answer...I am having a hard time writing what I am thinking...(surprise!)

[Waco]

There is no trust fund! PERIOD!

[Wolverine]

Check this: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1598883/posts?page=89#89

[Phsstpok]

My senators, Frist and Alexander, apparently either voted against or abstained.  With the exception of Domenici (R-NM) the list of Republicans is pretty much the "usual suspects."

Akaka	D-HI		Burns	R-MT
Baucus	D-MT		Chafee	R-RI
Bayh	D-IN		Collins	R-ME
Biden	D-DE		Lugar	R-IN
Bingaman	D-NM		Smith	R-OR
Boxer	D-CA		Snowe	R-ME
Byrd	D-WV		Talent	R-MO
Cantwell	D-WA
Carper	D-DE
Clinton	D-NY
Conrad	D-ND
Dayton	D-MN
Dodd	D-CT
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
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
Stabenow	D-MI
Wyden	D-OR)

I think we may have found an issue to hammer the Democrats on for November (I will try to figure out what Domenici was thinking before I push this too far... I respect him). 

[Cboldt]

Roll call vote 0068 on S.Amdt 3087 rejected 46-53.

GOP NAY votes: Burns, Chaffee, Collins, Domenici, Lugar, Smith, Snowe, Talent.
Voinovich did not vote.
There were no DEM crossovers.

[hattend]

Alaska: Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Stevens (R-AK), Yea

Both of my Senators voted right.

WTFIIWM? (What the F is it with Maine)

[sgtyork]

But you made it so clear!