James Webb on Social Security Democratic Sr Senator

Entitlement programs are safety net, not socialism

"When social security was announced," said Webb, "there were people who said, 'Oh, this is a socialist program, you know, what are you doing here?' When Medicare was announced, 'Oh this is a socialist program, what are you doing?'"

"Well, what we were doing was putting a safety net under people," explained Webb, "who otherwise would not be able to live with dignity."

Webb went on to clarify his position, "I am a very strong believer of preserving social security as we know it and Medicare as we know it and if we have to pay for it, we have to pay for it. We have that obligation to our citizens."

Opposes using Social Security taxes for private accounts

A: Candidate Jim Webb, Democrat, chose not to make additional comments.

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.