Social Security

SOCIAL SECURITY

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today we were visited on Capitol Hill by Alan Greenspan. Alan Greenspan is the head of the Federal Reserve and is considered the economics guru who comes to Washington periodically, to Capitol Hill, and gives us advice. Sometimes that advice is very wise and sagacious, and sometimes I think it is totally political--the same Alan Greenspan who helped President Clinton with the task of reducing the deficit, the right thing to do.

President Clinton came up with a proposal which in fact reduced the deficit, a deficit which through previous administrations of President Ronald Reagan and President George Bush finally came to an end at the end of the Clinton administration. For the first time in modern memory, we were generating surpluses in the Federal Treasury. All of that red ink finally ended. We moved into the black. Mr. Greenspan was the inspiration for this initially, saying to the Clinton administration, get serious and get real about the deficit. We were anxious to listen to Mr. Greenspan in following years about what his advice might be.

Along came the Bush administration 4 years ago proposing dramatic tax cuts. The argument for the White House was, if you have a surplus, more money in the Treasury than you need, for goodness sakes, give it back to the people who paid it. That was the argument for the tax cut.

Many of us warned that sometimes the economy turns around, and things happen you don't anticipate. If we are going to have tax cuts, we should have some sort of a safety valve there. If things go badly, the tax cuts will not continue and drive us into deficit. Mr. Greenspan didn't argue for that kind of caution at all, and the Bush White House rejected that notion.

What happened? Exactly as we anticipated--unforeseen circumstances; the surplus disappeared, the tax cuts were there. Along came a recession, followed by a war on terrorism, followed by the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, in addition to the tax cuts still being on the books. That grand surplus disappeared into a deficit--the biggest deficit in the history of the United States.

Now comes the President with a new plan. He says let us privatize Social Security. Let us create private and personal accounts, knowing full well that to do that you have to take money out of the Social Security trust fund so people can invest it in mutual funds. Some say that is too risky. Regardless of whether it is risky, it does take money out of the Social Security trust fund and adds to the deficit.

In comes Mr. Greenspan today for more words of advice. We welcome him to Capitol Hill, but we wait patiently and anxiously to hear that same deficit fighter of years ago comment on what we are seeing today. Where is Mr. Greenspan when it comes to these tax cuts that have driven us into this deficit? Where is Mr. Greenspan when it comes to privatizing Social Security that will make it worse? Sadly, he understands that deficits are not healthy, but Dr. Greenspan is afraid to prescribe any serious medicine.

One of the concerns we have with the Social Security trust fund is after the surplus has ended and the Bush administration's tax cuts brought us into this new era of deficits, more and more money is being pulled out of the Social Security trust fund.

The President, who tells us he is worried about the Social Security trust fund, has been the biggest problem the Social Security trust fund has run into. His tax cut plan and his privatization plan attack literally the balance in the Social Security trust fund. Congress has joined in this.

Every time Congress voted for the tax cuts, it voted to raid the Social Security trust fund. Since 2000, the Social Security trust fund surplus has lost $800 billion--$800 billion taken out of the Social Security trust fund since the year 2000 when President Bush came to office.

Now the President tells us he is worried about Social Security's future. The obvious question is, Why weren't you worried when you were taking all of this money out of the Social Security trust fund?

How much of that surplus was paid back to strengthen the Social Security trust fund since President Bush took office? Zero. The President has been taking their money out of the Social Security trust fund. That means workers have paid $800 billion more into Social Security in taxes than were necessary to pay out benefits and the Social Security trust fund turned around, nd that money was removed by the President's policies.

The Bush administration has borrowed $800 billion from the American public over the last 5 years--money that was paid to the Government for the Social Security trust fund, for their tax cuts, and to fund the war. Instead of paying it back, the Republicans have called the bonds on the Social Security trust fund ``meaningless IOUs.'' How is that for respect for the Social Security trust fund.

Now to draw attention away from the Republican idea of cutting benefits instead of paying the trust fund back, the Republican Policy Committee has come up with a document criticizing a Democratic plan on Social Security that doesn't exist. We talked about that earlier this morning. In their document, the Republican Policy Committee says the Democrats want to use the Social Security trust fund surpluses for the next 13 years for new Government programs.

We have been saying for years that we need to protect the Social Security trust fund. The Democratic position was well articulated by President Clinton in 1998. In his State of the Union Address, President Clinton said, ``What should we do with the projected budget surplus? Save Social Security first.''

That has been the Democratic position--not the Republican position.

President Clinton went on to say, ``I propose that we reserve 100 percent of the surplus--that's every penny of any surplus--until we have taken all the necessary measures to strengthen the Social Security system for the 21st Century.''

In his campaign to succeed President Clinton, former Vice President Gore--they kidded him about this--talked about a lockbox to protect the trust fund for Social Security. But since President Bush was elected in 2000, Democrats in Congress have been trying to preserve the Social Security trust fund. We have tried time after time to amend President Bush's reckless tax cuts and to protect the Social Security trust fund.

Here is a chart which goes through the variety of votes taken on the floor of the Senate since President Bush took office. Each one of these six votes was an effort by the Democrats to protect the Social Security trust fund from tax cuts and spending by President Bush.

Starting with the Bush tax cut in 2001, Senator Byrd, to forego tax cuts to extend Social Security, was defeated on a party-line vote--38 Democrats, yes; 48 Republicans, no.

The Harkin amendment to delay the tax cuts until we enact legislation that ensures the long-term solvency of Social Security and Medicare, party-line vote, defeated; 45 Democrats voted yes, Republicans voted no, 49.

The list goes on.

The point is that repeatedly we have said to the Bush administration, if you keep taking money out of the Social Security trust fund, you are going to jeopardize the future. You have to protect it. Don't give a tax cut to the wealthiest people in America and endanger Social Security.

Six different times, the Republicans in the Senate were given a chance to agree with this, and six different times they prevailed and voted ``no.'' Now they come before us today and argue it is the Democrats who want to take money out of the Social Security trust fund.

Take a look at the reality of deficits under this administration. Take a look at the surplus, the black ink, inherited by President Bush, and then look at deficits that have been created. One-half of this deficit was created by tax cuts, primarily to the wealthiest people in America.

Now look at how this deficit will grow, if the President's privatization plan on Social Security goes through.

Mr. Greenspan came to Capitol Hill. He had a chance to talk about being fiscally conservative. He had a chance to tell us that privatizing Social Security was a bad idea because of the deficits it creates for future generations. But once again, he stopped short of that kind of sound advice.

Today, Mr. Greenspan told the Senate Banking Committee the single biggest tool the Government has to increase national savings is to reduce the deficit. We all agree with that. Unfortunately, Mr. Greenspan is not candid and direct when it comes to the President's privatization plan for Social Security, which adds dramatically to the deficit.

Imagine, over 20 years we are going to add $4 or $5 trillion to the deficit so that President Bush can create the so-called private accounts. That is shortsighted. It is not going to help the country recover.

After the President submitted a budget last week showing a dramatic worsening of the Nation's fiscal outlook, the President sent Congress a request for an additional $82 billion in spending for the war in Iraq. The money to fund the war on terrorism, the money to fund this war in Iraq is not included in the President's budget. President Bush's plan to privatize Social Security was not included, either. The $2 trillion that is needed for this transition in Social Security is not there.

The Republican Policy Committee wants to criticize Democrats on Social Security instead of answering the hard questions about the President's privatization plan. Where did the money go that Americans paid into Social Security? Where will the money come from to transition to any privatization system?

Instead of criticizing the so-called Democratic bill that does not exist, the Republicans ought to produce their bill to privatize Social Security. Once the American people understand it doesn't add up, they will reject it.

We are going to go back to principles and values which say we should protect Social Security first. That is what President Clinton said. That should still be our guiding value in this debate.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

http://thomas.loc.gov