Amy Klobuchar on Social Security DFL Sr Senator (MN); Democratic presidential contender

Raise cap above "donut hole": FICA over $250,000

KLOBUCHAR: It is not just about our seniors as we look at how we're going to keep Social Security solvent. It's going to start paying out less benefits. Maybe 10 to 15 percent by 2034 if we don't do something about it. So, then, what are the solutions? There's really a pretty straightforward elegant solution. Right now you pay into the Social Security fund up until $133,000 in income. And you can just lift that cap straight up, that's one way to do it. Or you can kind of do what we call a "donut hole," not have people paying for a little and have them start again at $250,000, which is a bill that actually Senator Sanders has led, that I have co-sponsored for a number of years. And to me, I think that that would make a lot of sense because it would keep Social Security solvent and strong.

Proposed new retirement accounts for those without

Address national debt without cutting entitlements

That Republican tax bill went so low that once it went under 25 percent, every point was $100 billion. Think what that could pay for, for rural broadband all over this country, which I pledge to do by 2022.

Close the carried interest loophole. Bring the capital gains rate to the rate that we see for personal tax rates. One thing I would add to the mix, comprehensive immigration reform. The bill we had back in 2013 brought the debt down $158 billion.

No raising retirement age; no cost of living increase

KLOBUCHAR: I believe that if we can shore up this deficit and balance the budget, that we can then start shoring up Social Security. This Congress has raided $925 billion from Social Security. And you go back to the Clinton administration.

Q: Would you raise the retirement age?

KLOBUCHAR: I don’t believe that is the solution.

Q: Cost of living increase?

KLOBUCHAR: I don’t believe that’s the solution. If we can get that balanced budget in place, we’re going to be able to secure Social Security for the future [as we had under Clinton]

Q: With no changes in the system?

KLOBUCHAR: We can have a bipartisan commission look at those changes. They should be options to be looked at, but it would be a hard sell on me because I believe our priority should be to balance the budget. There is a better way to do this by being fiscally responsible instead of giving billions of dollars in oil giveaways.

President’s privatization scheme puts us at risk

Raise cap from $90,000 for paying in

Privatization is a risky scheme

Make Social Security more secure for the long term

Incentives for private retirement options

Voted NO on establishing reserve funds & pre-funding for Social Security.

1. require that the Federal Old Age and Survivors Trust Fund be used only to finance retirement income of future beneficiaries;
2. ensure that there is no change to benefits for individuals born before January 1, 1951
3. provide participants with the benefits of savings and investment while permitting the pre-funding of at least some portion of future benefits; and
4. ensure that the funds made available to finance such legislation do not exceed the amounts estimated to be actuarially available.

Proponents recommend voting YES because:

Perhaps the worst example of wasteful spending is when we take the taxes people pay for Social Security and, instead of saving them, we spend them on other things. Even worse than spending Social Security on other things is we do not count it as debt when we talk about the deficit every year. So using the Social Security money is actually a way to hide even more wasteful spending without counting it as debt. This Amendment would change that.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

This amendment has a fatal flaw. It leaves the door open for private Social Security accounts by providing participants with the option of "pre-funding of at least some portion of future benefits."

This body has already closed the door on the President's ill-conceived plan for private Social Security accounts. The opposition to privatization is well-known:
• Privatizing Social Security does nothing to extend the solvency of the program.
• Transition costs would put our Nation in greater debt by as much as $4.9 trillion.
• Creating private accounts would mean benefit cuts for retirees, by as much as 40%.
• Half of all American workers today have no pension plan from their employers. It is critical that we protect this safety net.

Rated 99% by ARA, indicating a pro-Trust Fund stance.

Scoring system for 2014: Ranges from 0% (supports privatization and other market-based reforms) to 100% (supports keeping federal control over Trust Fund and Social Security system).

About ARA (from their website, www.RetiredAmericans.org):

The Alliance for Retired Americans is a nationwide organization, founded in May 2001, with now over 4.2 million members working together to make their voices heard in the laws, policies, politics, and institutions that shape our lives. The mission of the Alliance for Retired Americans is to ensure social and economic justice and full civil rights for all citizens so that they may enjoy lives of dignity, personal and family fulfillment and security.

• Alliance members visit the polls in record numbers. We use the power of our membership and our Congressional Voting Record to educate and mobilize seniors to elect leaders committed to improving the lives of retirees and older Americans.
• We are effectively warding off cuts to our most important social programs like Social Security and Medicare. Our Human Chain Against the Chained CPI events in the summer of 2013 took place in more than 50 cities and mobilized support for stopping this cut to earned Social Security benefits.
• We blocked the privatization of Social Security with our Social Security "Truth Truck" delivering 2.1 million petitions to Members of Congress and other tactics.
• The Alliance makes its voice heard on the issues that matter not just to current retirees, but to all Americans who hope to retire one day. We were a leading voice in recent debates considering changes to Medicare, like replacing guaranteed benefits with a voucher system, and remain so in 2014.