WHEN DEMOCRATS TALK ABOUT SAVING SOCIAL SECURITY, WATCH OUT!

They Have A History Of Taxing It, Raiding It And Proposing That The Government Invest It In The Stock Market! And Now, They Have No Plan To Save It!!

Democrats “took no action to save Social Security during the two years of the Clinton administration that they were the majority party in Congress. Nor have they offered a plan since they earned minority status.”
(Editorial, “Social Security,” The [Jacksonville] Florida Times-Union, December 3, 1998)

Thanks To The Democrats, 1 In 5 Seniors Now Pay More Taxes On Social Security Benefits. The 1993 budget reconciliation resulted in higher taxes for an additional 9 million senior citizens. These affected retirees were anticipated to “pay an average $1,180 tax on their Social Security benefits [starting] in 2001.”
(“GOP Pushes End To 1993 Hike In Taxes On Social Security Benefits,” The Cato Institute Website, www.socialsecurity.org, July 27, 2000)

Not A Single Republican Voted To Raise Social Security Benefit Taxes On America’s Seniors. As part of the Clinton/Gore economic package, Democrats passed one of the largest tax increases in history - $357 billion in tax increases between 1993 to 1998. One of the primary elements of the Clinton/Gore package taxed up to 85 percent of Social Security benefits, rather than the existing level of 50 percent, for single seniors earning more than $25,000 a year or couples earning more than $32,000.
(1993 CQ Almanac, p. 86)

No Republicans Voted For The FY 1994 House Budget Reconciliation.
(H.R. 2264, Agreement To The Conference Report, CQ Vote #406: Passed 218-216: R 0-175; D 217-41; I 1-0, August 5, 1993)

No Republicans Voted For The FY 1994 Senate Budget Reconciliation/Passage.
(H.R. 2264, Final Passage Of The Bill To Raise Taxes And Cut Mandatory Spending, CQ Vote #190: Passed 50-49: R 0-43; D 49-6, With Vice President Al Gore Casting A “Yea” Vote, June 24, 1993)

No Republicans Voted For The FY 1994 Senate Budget Reconciliation/Adoption.
(H.R. 2264, Adoption Of The Conference Report, CQ Vote #247: Adopted 51-50: R 0-44; D 50-6, With Vice President Al Gore Casting A “Yea” Vote, August 6, 1993)

Which Party’s Vice President Was Proud To Raise Taxes On Social Security? The Democrats!

Al Gore Is Proud Of His Vote To Increase Taxes On Seniors. “I’ll tell you, that’s the best vote I’ve ever cast in my career because it really made the biggest difference.”
(Al Gore, Remarks At The AFL-CIO Transportation Trades Convention, July 21, 2000)

Gore Proposed Raising Taxes On Social Security In 1988. During his failed 1988 presidential bid, Al Gore proposed “imposing additional taxes on Social Security benefits for upper-income retirees.”
(Robert S. McIntyre And Jonathan M. Crystal, “Who, Me? Taxes? What The Candidates Say,” The Washington Post, January 24, 1988)

Gore Flip-Flopped – In 1980 He Opposed Taxing Social Security. “I sincerely believe that any plan to tax Social Security benefits would place an unforgivable burden on our senior citizens who are currently trying to enjoy their retirement years . . . . Taxing Social Security benefits would undermine any incentive for a person to save part of his lifetime earnings.”
(Al Gore, “What’s Happening In Washington,” Carthage Courier, February 21, 1980)

Gore To Seniors: Freeze! According to inside reports, Gore was one of several White House insiders who initially favored freezing Social Security cost of living adjustments (COLAs). The plan was to propose a COLA freeze and then drop it, making it easier to get a tax increase on benefits.
(Elizabeth Drew, On the Edge: The Clinton Presidency, Touchstone, 1994, p. 69-70)

Gore Did Nothing To Relieve The Payroll Tax Burden. “Gore support[ed] lower taxes only in the form of federally targeted tax credits for education and kids. He brag[ged] that, as a result, middle-class tax burdens have fallen. But this ignore[d] the Social Security payroll tax burden: Seventy percent of wage earners pay more in payroll taxes than in income taxes. In fact, the combined payment for FICA and income taxes as a share of total wages and salaries has grown from 22.5 percent [in 1995] to 26.5 [in 1999].”
(Lawrence Kudlow, “Tax Man,” National Review, April 19, 1999)

Which Party Led The Repeal Of The 1993 Social Security Tax Increase? The Republicans! House Republicans Voted Twice To Repeal The Social Security Tax Hike. In 1995, the House voted 246-188 to repeal the Clinton/Gore Social Security tax increase. In 2000, the House voted 265-159 to repeal the long criticized tax hike on Social Security benefits. The 1993 Clinton/Gore economic package raised taxes by $357 billion.
(H.R. 1215, CQ #295: Passed 246-188: R 219-11; D 27-176; I 0-1, April 5, 1995; H.R. 4865, CQ #450: Passed 265-159: R 212-3; D 52-155; I 1-1, July 27, 2000; 1993 CQ Almanac, p. 86)

Which Party Proposed Yet Another Social Security Tax Increase? The Democrats!

Democrat Congressman Peter DeFazio (D-OR) Sponsored A Social Security Reform Bill To Increase Payroll Taxes And Produce Benefit Cuts For Seniors. The Social Security Stabilization and Enhancement Act of 2001 would have increased payroll taxes on Social Security and resulted in a benefit cut for seniors. Fortunately, the Act died in the House Committee on Ways and Means.
(H.R. 3315, Referred To The House Committee On Ways And Means, November 16, 2001)

The Act Would Have Resulted In A Payroll Tax Increase. The act would have lifted the “cap” on payroll taxes, which only applies to the first $84,900 in wages under current law. The payroll tax would apply to all of a worker’s wages, but workers would not have received credit for these extra taxes. A worker earning $150,000 a year would pay an extra $8,100 in taxes each year, but receive no extra benefits.
(“Social Security Reform,” The Cato Institute, August 28, 2002)

Would have been the biggest tax increase in history – $1.2 trillion over ten years;

The Act Would Have Resulted In Benefit Cuts. The Act would have based Social Security payments on a worker’s 38 highest earning years, rather than the current 35-year system.
(“Social Security Reform,” The Cato Institute, August 28, 2002)

DEMOCRATS RAIDED THE SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS DURING YEARS OF PEACE AND PROSPERITY

In The Following Fiscal Years, President Clinton Presided Over Federal Budgets That Raided The Social Security Surplus By These Dollar Amounts:
(Note: The majority of the dollar amounts listed below were paid for largely by Social Security trust funds.)

(“Historical Table 1.1, Budget Of The United States Government, FY 2002,” Office Of Management And Budget, 2002)

Tim Russert Noted That Democrats Promised Not To Touch The “Lockbox” But Did Anyway. “[T]he Democrats said, ‘Well, we’re not going to touch the Social Security surplus, the lockbox,’ and their economic plan, put forward by leading Senate Democrats, in fact, spends the Social Security surplus.”
(CNBC’s “Tim Russert,” May 10, 2002)

Representative Gephardt (D-MO) Voted For Clinton Administration Budgets That Raided The Social Security Surplus In Fiscal Years 1994 And 1995.
(H.R. 2264, CQ Vote #406: Adopted 218-216: R 0-175; D 217-41; I 1-0, August 5, 1993; H. Con. Res. 218, CQ Vote #161: Adopted 220-183: R 0-166; D 219-17; I 1-0, May 5, 1994)

What’s $925 Billion Among Friends? Gephardt Said “That’s Good Enough” To Balance The Budget. “We’ve got to get off this idea that [balance] has to be exactly mathematically calibrated each and every year or we’re all going to turn into pumpkins. We’ve got to get people to understand that if you’re below one percent of [GDP], that’s good enough, thank you.” One percent of GDP has averaged more than $925 billion annually since Representative Gephardt’s statement.
(James Fallows, “A Democrat Who Admits It,” The Atlantic Monthly, November, 1997; “National Income And Product Accounts Table 1.1,” Bureau Of Economic Analysis, August 29, 2002)

Senator Daschle (D-SD) Voted For Clinton Administration Budgets That Raided The Social Security Surplus In Fiscal Years 1994, 1995, And 1998.
(H.R. 2264, CQ Vote #247: Adopted 51-50: R 0-44; D 50-6, With Vice President Al Gore Casting A “Yea” Vote, August 6, 1993; H. Con. Res. 218, CQ Vote #113: Adopted 53-46: R 2-42; D 51-4, May 12, 1994; H.R. 2014, CQ Vote #211: Adopted 92-8: R 55-0; D 37-8, July 31, 1997)

Vice President Gore Supported Clinton’s Proposal To Invest The Social Security Surplus In The Stock Market. In 1999, “President Clinton proposed . . . transferring 62 percent of projected budget surpluses to Social Security, to put more than $2.7 billion into the system over the next 15 years. He said about $700 billion of it should be invested in the stock market for increased returns. Gore support[ed] the administration plan.”
(Walter R. Mears, “No Avoiding The High-Voltage Issue In This Campaign,” The Associated Press, November 27, 1999)

But When Gore Was Campaigning For President, He Said The Clinton/Gore Proposal Was “No Longer Necessary.” “[A]ides said Gore believes a Clinton administration plan to use the stock market to bolster Social Security [was] no longer necessary. President Clinton had proposed [in 1999] with Gore’s support getting new revenue for Social Security by having government invest in the market . . . . ‘[Gore] doesn’t think that’s necessary any more,’ said Hattaway.”
(Sandra Sobieraj, “Gore Fund-Raising In Florida,” The Associated Press, April 7, 2000)

Gore Then Flip-Flopped Again, Saying The Clinton/Gore Administration Did Not Make The Proposal At All – But In Fact They Did. “We didn’t really propose it. We talked about the idea.”
(Dan Balz And Terry M. Neal, “Bush Hit On Social Security,” The Washington Post, May 2, 2000)

Despite The Democrats’ Proposal, The Government Should Not Take Over The Role Of A Private Investor. “With large (and hidden) risks and uncertain benefits, policy makers should reject the idea of centralized investment. The United States has the largest and most sophisticated financial markets in the world, fully capable of managing the investments of American workers. The government does not belong in this line of business.”
(Carolyn L. Weaver, “How Not To Reform Social Security,” American Enterprise Institute, August 1998)

In 2001, The Democrats Again Proposed The Government Invest Social Security Funds In The Stock Market. “The [proposal] marked the first time that Democrats have countered Bush’s plan to rescue Social Security with a stock strategy of their own. But, unlike Bush, they would leave it to the government to do the investing and take the inherent risks.”
(Robert A. Rosenblatt, “Democrats Venture Into Realm Of Social Security Privatization,” Los Angeles Times, July 25, 2001)

Under President Bush’s Reform Plan, The Government Is Strictly Forbidden From Investing In The Stock Market.
(“Strengthening Social Security And Creating Personal Wealth For All Americans,” The President’s Commission On Strengthening Social Security, December 21, 2001)

The Cost Of Social Security Will Exceed Payroll Tax Revenues In 2017. “Social Security spending will exceed projected tax collections in 2017. These deficits will quickly balloon to alarming proportions. After adjusting for inflation, annual deficits will reach $96 billion in 2021, $205 billion in 2026, and $324 billion in 2034.”
(David C. John, “A Guide To The New 2002 Social Security Trustees’ Report,” The Heritage Foundation, WebMemo #91, March 29, 2002)

Between 2017 And 2076, Social Security Deficits Will Total Over $25 Trillion -- This Money Will Have To Come From Increased Taxes Or Lower Benefits. “From 2017 to 2076, Social Security will run payroll tax deficits worth over $25 trillion (in today’s dollars). To restore solvency under the current [Social Security] program, we can either increase payroll taxes by over 50 percent – from the current 12.4 percent to almost 20 percent – or reduce benefits by over one-quarter.”
(Andrew G. Biggs, “Who’s Cutting What?: Comparing Costs And Benefits In The Social Security Reform Debate,” The Cato Institute, September 10, 2002)

By 2041, The Social Security Trust Fund Will Be Completely Exhausted, Leaving Social Security Unable To Borrow Any More Money From General Revenues. At this point, Social Security will be completely insolvent and, by law, benefits will be cut unless something is done to reform the program.
(David C. John, “A Guide To The New 2002 Social Security Trustees’ Report,” The Heritage Foundation, WebMemo #91, March 29, 2002)

The Democrat Do-Nothing Plan Is “Bad News For Younger Workers.” “According to the 2002 [Social Security Trustees] Report, any worker who is under the age of 26 today will reach full retirement age after the trust fund is exhausted. Unless Congress act[s] soon, they can look forward to paying full Social Security taxes throughout their careers, but only receiving 75 percent or less of their promised benefits. In addition, they will have to pay about $5 trillion (in today’s dollars) in additional general taxes in order to repay the Social Security trust fund.”
(David C. John, “A Guide To The New 2002 Social Security Trustees’ Report,” The Heritage Foundation, WebMemo #91, March 29, 2002)

The Democrat Do-Nothing Plan Is Bad News For Women And Low-Income Workers. A 25 year old, low-wage earning woman who retires in 2042 should, under current law, receive $896 per month (in 2001 dollars), but “because Social Security will be insolvent in 2042, by law the program can pay her only $655 per month (with larger cuts in future years).” Based on one of the President’s Commission’s models, if this woman had a personal retirement account, she would receive $986 per month, more than the current system promises and more than it could afford to pay.
(Andrew G. Biggs, “Who’s Cutting What?: Comparing Costs And Benefits In The Social Security Reform Debate,” The Cato Institute, September 10, 2002)

The Models Proposed By President Bush’s Bipartisan Commission, Chaired By Former Democrat Senator Patrick Moynihan (D-NY), Would Reduce The Amount Of On-Budget Revenue Required To Keep Social Security Solvent And Permanently Secure The Program’s Solvency. Under current law, over $22 trillion of non-Social Security general revenue will be required to pay for Social Security benefits between 2017 and 2076. Commission Model 1 reduces that cost to $20 trillion. Commission Models 2 and 3 cost dramatically less – $7 trillion and $10 trillion respectively. In addition, under the Commission models, these transition costs are one-time investments, while under current law, there will continue to be “large, permanent deficits” requiring additional funds after 2075.
(“Memorandum Of The Chief Actuary,” Social Security Administration, July 9, 2002; Andrew G. Biggs, “Who’s Cutting What?: Comparing Costs And Benefits In The Social Security Reform Debate,” The Cato Institute, September 10, 2002)

President Clinton And The Democrats Had No Plan. They Refused To Even Study The Challenges Faced By Social Security.

Clinton Vetoed Now-Former Congressman Archer’s (R-TX) Proposal To Create A Bipartisan Commission To Reform The Social Security System. “Rep. Bill Archer, a Republican from Texas, accused Mr. Clinton of playing politics by refusing to endorse a bi-partisan commission he proposed earlier this year. It was approved by Congress but vetoed by Mr. Clinton. Mr. Archer said Mr. Clinton is the first president among the past six to refuse to sign on to a special commission that attempted to reform Social Security or to even say which type of reform he supports.”
(Peter Morton, “U.S. Takes Another Stab At Pension Reforms,” National Post, December 8, 1998)

University Of Illinois Professor Jeffrey R. Brown Said Critics Of The President’s Commission Have No Plan Of Their Own. “The very groups that have most criticized this commission have yet, to my knowledge, to come forward with a plan that will achieve these kind of financial objectives [that are necessary to sustain Social Security] . . . . And until they do, until someone comes forward with a plan that doesn’t include personal accounts that shows how we can do economically meaningful increases in national savings, then as far as I’m concerned, personal accounts are really the only game in town.”
(Dr. Jeffrey Brown, Remarks At Cato Institute Events Series: “How Would The President’s Commission’s Plans Affect Young Americans?” September 12, 2002)

Former Senators Bob Kerrey (D-NE) And Warren Rudman (R-NH) Said Critics Of The President’s Plan Should Put Up Or Shut Up. “Critics . . . should come up with their own plans for shoring up Social Security. . . . If we do not have the political will to solve the Social Security problem now, we can’t hope to do so when the baby boomers start collecting benefits . . . . Not acting is itself a choice – one that has grim consequences for today’s midlife adults and even bigger ones for their children. Politicians of both parties should get behind specific reform plans or be held accountable for supporting the consequences of the Do Nothing Plan.”
(Senator Bob Kerrey And Senator Warren Rudman, Op-Ed, “Social Security Shell Game,” The Washington Post, August 12, 2002)

Senators John Breaux (D-LA) And Judd Gregg (R-NH) Commended President Bush For Accepting “The Challenge” Of Instituting Social Security Reform. “Nearly four years ago we joined to forge a bipartisan compromise – a venture that has, unfortunately, proven that playing politics with Social Security is more attractive than finding a solution. The partisanship has escalated over the past two years, with Democrats and Republicans challenging each other to take on Social Security. Now President Bush has accepted the challenge. We must act quickly to institute reform. . . . [T]he current Social Security system is unsustainable and . . . changes must be made to be sure money is there to support the baby boomers and beyond.”
(Senator John Breaux And Senator Judd Gregg, Op-Ed, “Social Security: Let’s End The Political Football,” The Washington Post, July 26, 2001)

Similar to Papa Bush's broken "Read My Lips" promise when he bailed out the Savings and Loans, Dubya's Social Security "Privatization" is nothing but a scandalous assault of taxpayers by Wall Street financial institutions. The Shrub is also facilitating this thievery with his putrid proposal for subsidized terrorism "insurance".

If the current SS System = Enron, then Dubya's "privatization" plan = Arthur Anderson.

Both major political parties perpetuate The Big Lie regarding Social Security. The Big Lie has existed since Social Security's inception. The debate over "privatization" is only the latest version of The Big Lie.

The Big Lie is that Social Security is some kind of retirement savings plan.

It is NOT.

Social Security is a socialist income redistribution scheme, nothing else.

Those who are working are taxed to provide a "safety net" for those who are less fortunate.
Originally, this meant retirees and surviving dependents.
Congress has, of course, complicated it far beyond this over the last 65 years.

But one fact remains: it is NOT a "savings plan", it is an income redistribution scheme.

A major facet of The Big Lie is that "we have to do something so that Social Security remains solvent in the future.

Poppycock!

In today's age of modern computerization, the computation for operating an income redistribution scheme that remains perpetually solvent is quite simple:

This month's total SS tax receipts = Next month's total SS tax disbursements

The only change necessary to the current system is that monthly payments to eligible recipients would be a variable amount, not fixed.

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO NEED FOR A MULTI-TRILLION DOLLAR "TRUST" FUND!!!

Congress should NEVER have been permitted to confiscate so much money from the American People in the name of The Big Lie. This fund is nothing but a slush fund that Congress raids to pay for other government expenditures. If private sector employers did the same thing with their companies' pension funds, they'd be placed in prison. The "privatization" plan proposed by Bush is merely an attempt by Wall Street brokerage firms and financial institutions to get in on the scam: grab a portion of a constant revenue stream (guaranteed by taxation) from which they can skim their commissions.

Daschle's "concern" over the Social Security system is a lie.

Bush's plan to Enronize the system is worse.

The American People need to wake up and put these liars and thieves in prison.

"If I were in my twenties or thirties I would put most of it in stocks given the chance. Over thirty to forty years one would only lose his money if America fails."

I agree. If we could have invested in the market we all would have had a much better return on our money.

This is only a small amount that will be invested, 2% is the sum I recall hearing. Much smaller than what I believe is currently allowed for Government workers who CAN invest part of their retirement funds in the same stock market that we cannot.

I never ever see a mention that Clinton not only signed a tax on Social Security but it was also retroactive.

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.