Privatization drains money from guaranteed benefits
Using Social Security taxes for private accounts
AARP
Opposes
Bob Casey
Opposes
Rick Santorum
Supports
Q: Will you support or oppose using Social Security taxes to fund private accounts?
A: I oppose Social Security privatization that drains away money from the
Social Security system and would cut Social Security’s guaranteed benefits. The first step to protecting Social Security is to stop the assaults launched against Social Security by the privatization advocates.
The next step is to get our fiscal house back in order and grow the economy. These two steps are necessary before considering any kind of changes in Social Security.
SANTORUM: If you’re not for personal retirement accounts, how much are you going to raise their taxes? Or how much are you going to cut benefits?
CASEY: You need a step by step process. The best remedy for Social Security is economic growth.
Q:
Something that’s approaching 70% of the budget, you’re going to grow your way out of it?
CASEY: That’s only part of it. We repeal that tax cut for the top 1%, that’s part of it.
Q: But we’re talking about Social Security.
CASEY: I don’t agree with
your premise. I don’t think you’re talking about a crisis. The crisis is privatization.
SANTORUM: That’s no answer.
CASEY: I had a much better answer than yours, because your so-called guarantee is what The Philadelphia Inquirer called “snake oil.”
His proposal is to privatize. His proposal drains a trillion dollars out of the trust fund. They’re draining it right now, to pay for those tax cuts for the wealthy that you supported. That’s the wrong policy for Social Security and for the economy.
Bob Casey opposes Social Security privatization that drains away money from the Social Security system and would cut Social Security’s guaranteed benefits. Bob Casey supports measures to help Americans save for retirement while not jeopardizing Social
Security. He supports strengthening private pension plans and encouraging more Americans to save for their retirement. However, these plans must not divert payroll taxes or jeopardize Social Security’s guaranteed benefits.
Source: Campaign website, www.bobcaseyforpa.com, “Issues”
Feb 22, 2006
Voted NO on establishing reserve funds & pre-funding for Social Security.
Voting YES would:
require that the Federal Old Age and Survivors Trust Fund be used only to finance retirement income of future beneficiaries;
ensure that there is no change to benefits for individuals born before January 1, 1951
provide participants with the benefits of savings and investment while permitting the pre-funding of at least some portion of future benefits; and
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.
Make no mistake about it, this is a stalking-horse for Social Security. It looks good on the surface, but this is an amendment to privatize Social Security.
