Follow @ontheissuesorg

Bernie Sanders on Social Security Socialist Jr Senator; previously Representative (VT-At-Large)

Despite GOP rhetoric, Social Security is NOT going bankrupt

A: As Vermont’s Congressman I have vigorously opposed President Bush’s efforts to privatize Social Security. Social Security is the most successful anti-poverty program in history. We must strengthen it, not destroy it. Despite the President’s rhetoric, Social Security is NOT going bankrupt. By repealing Bush’s tax cuts for the very rich, and making some minor changes to the funding of the Social Security program, Social Security will be able to pay out every penny owed to every eligible beneficiary for the indefinite future. I oppose privatization plans that would drain money from Social Security and I oppose raising the retirement age or cuts to promised benefits.

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.

Voted NO on raising 401(k) limits & making pension plans more portable.

Voted NO on reducing tax payments on Social Security benefits.

Voted YES on strengthening the Social Security Lockbox.

Changing Social Security disproportionately affects women.

RESOLUTION: Recognizing the unique effects that proposals to reform Social Security may have on women.

• Whereas the Social Security benefit structure is of particular importance to low-earning wives and widows, with 63% of women beneficiaries aged 62 or older receiving wife's or widow's benefits;
• Whereas 3/4 of unmarried and widowed elderly women rely on Social Security for over half of their income;
• Whereas without Social Security benefits, the elderly poverty rate among women would have been 52.2% and among widows would have been 60.6%;
• Whereas women tend to live longer and tend to have lower lifetime earnings than men do;
• Whereas women spend an average of 11.5 years out of their careers to care for their families, and are more likely to work part-time than full-time; and
• Whereas during these years in the workforce, women earn an average of 70 cents for every dollar men earn:
• Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives recognizes the unique obstacles that women face in ensuring retirement security and survivor and disability stability and the essential role that Social Security plays in guaranteeing inflation-protected financial stability for women throughout their entire old age, and it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the Congress and the President should take these factors into account when considering proposals to reform the Social Security system.

Reject proposals for private saving accounts.

To reject proposals to partially or completely substitute private saving accounts for the lifelong, guaranteed, inflation-protected insurance benefits provided through Social Security. The Congress finds the following:

1. President Bush promised to partially privatize Social Security, and appointed a commission to develop a plan on his behalf.
2. The commission developed three alternative plans that would partially privatize Social Security.
3. The plans divert substantial monies from the Social Security Trust Funds to pay for the private accounts, which threatens benefits for current beneficiaries by significantly weakening the financial condition of the Trust Funds.
4. The plans' cuts in disability and survivor benefits directly contradict the President's promise that disability and survivor benefits would be preserved under privatization.
5. Furthermore, these reductions in guaranteed benefits apply to all workers, regardless of whether they chose to have an individual account or not.
6. Substituting private accounts for guaranteed Social Security benefits increases financial risk for retirees, disabled workers and their families.
7. Moreover, other proposals to privatize Social Security, such as the 'Social Security Guarantee Plus' plan or the 'Social Security Ownership and Guarantee' plan, establish private accounts that directly or indirectly reduce Social Security benefits.

• The Congress hereby commits to preserve the guaranteed, lifelong, inflation-protected benefits provided under the Social Security Act to retirees, disabled workers and their families, and the survivors of deceased workers; and
• Congress therefore rejects the President's plans to partially privatize Social Security, and other proposals to privatize Social Security by establishing private accounts that would undermine traditional Social Security benefits.

Rated 100% by the ARA, indicating a pro-senior voting record.

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. The Alliance believes that all older and retired persons have a responsibility to strive to create a society that incorporates these goals and rights and that retirement provides them with opportunities to pursue new and expanded activities with their unions, civic organizations and their communities.

The following ratings are based on the votes the organization considered most important; the numbers reflect the percentage of time the representative voted the organization's preferred position.

Reject privatization; don't raise the retirement age.

Some 200 Democratic House and Senate candidates have signed on to a pledge rejecting any effort to privatize or scale back Social Security benefits or raise the retirement age. The Progressive Change Campaign Committee sponsored this pledge among Congressional candidates.

Click here for definitions & background information on Social Security. Click here for a profile of Bernie Sanders. Click here for SenateMatch quiz answers by Bernie Sanders. Click here for AmericansElect quiz answers by Bernie Sanders. Click here for a summary of Bernie Sanders's positions on all issues. Click here for issue positions of other VT politicians.
Other candidates on Social Security:		Bernie Sanders on other issues:
VT Gubernatorial: Peter Shumlin VT Senatorial: Patrick Leahy VT politicians Retiring in 2014 election: GA:Chambliss(R) IA:Harkin(D) MI:Levin(D) NE:Johanns(R) NJ:Lautenberg(D) SD:Johnson(D) WV:Rockefeller(D) Senate Vacancies 2013: HI:Inouye(Deceased) HI:Schatz(Appointed) MA:Kerry(Resigned) MA:Cowan(Appointed) SC:DeMint(Resigned) SC:Scott(Appointed) Retired as of Jan. 2013: AZ:Kyl(R) CT:Lieberman(D) HI:Akaka(D) ME:Snowe(R) ND:Conrad(D) NE:Nelson(D) NM:Bingaman(D) TX:Hutchison(R) VA:Webb(D) WI:Kohl(D)	Senate elections Nov. 2012: AZ:Flake(R) vs.Carmona(D) CA:Feinstein(D) vs.Emken(R) vs.Lightfoot(L) CT:McMahon(R) vs.Murphy(D) DE:Carper(D) vs.Wade(R) vs.Pires(I) FL:Nelson(D) vs.Mack(R) HI:Hirono(D) vs.Lingle(R) vs.Case(D) vs.Pirkowski(R) IN:Lugar(R) vs.Mourdock(R) vs.Donnelly(D) MA:Brown(R) vs.Warren(D) MD:Cardin(D) vs.Bongino(R) vs.Sobhani(I) ME:King(I) vs.Dill(D) vs.Summers(R) MI:Stabenow(D) vs.Hoekstra(R) vs.Boman(L) MN:Klobuchar(D) vs.Bills(R) MO:McCaskill(D) vs.Akin(R) MS:Wicker(R) vs.Gore(D) MT:Tester(D) vs.Rehberg(R)	ND:Heitkamp(D) vs.Berg(R) NE:Kerrey(D) vs.Fischer(R) NJ:Menendez(D) vs.Kyrillos(R) vs.Diakos(I) NM:Heinrich(D) vs.Wilson(R) NV:Heller(R) vs.Berkley(D) NY:Gillibrand(D) vs.Long(R) vs.Noren(I) vs.Clark(G) OH:Brown(D) vs.Mandel(R) PA:Casey(D) vs.Smith(R) RI:Whitehouse(D) vs.Hinckley(R) TN:Corker(R) vs.Clayton(D) TX:Cruz(R) vs.Sadler(D) vs.Roland(L) vs.Dewhurst(R) UT:Hatch(R) vs.Howell(D) VA:Kaine(D) vs.Allen(R) VT:Sanders(I) vs.MacGovern(R) WA:Cantwell(D) vs.Baumgartner(R) WI:Thompson(R) vs.Baldwin(D) WV:Manchin(D) vs.Raese(R) WY:Barrasso(R) vs.Chesnut(D)	Abortion Budget/Economy Civil Rights Corporations Crime Drugs Education Energy/Oil Environment Families Foreign Policy Free Trade Govt. Reform Gun Control Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Jobs Principles Social Security Tax Reform Technology War/Peace Welfare Other Senators Senate Votes (analysis) Bill Sponsorships Affiliations Policy Reports Group Ratings
Contact info: Mailing Address: Senate Office SD-332, Washington, DC 20510 Phone number: (202) 224-5141