Chris Dodd on Social Security
Democratic Sr Senator (CT)
A: I donít think you have to go that far. You could raise that tax far less than all incomes here and achieve the same result by achieving solvency. But issues like privatization have to be off the table, and I believe you can achieve that solvency here by doing simpler things without the draconian measures that some have suggested.
KUCINICH: Of course we ought to be raising the cap in order to protect Social Security. And in addition, we should be thinking about lowering the retirement age to 65. Peopleís bodies break down.
DODD: You could do this by basically readjusting that tax so it doesnít have to affect everyone in society.
Q: But youíd raise the cap to $500,000?
DODD: Youíve got to raise it up, clearly, to do this.
A: I donít disagree with that. This is an issue that comes to a head by the year 2040. Obviously, I think it would be important to start to address the issue. Certainly, we have no ideas, and I would be totally opposed to the privatization of Social Security. That is a very bad idea and I am glad we rejected it. But one of the ideas is to raise that level above $97,000.
Q: Do you support that?
A: I would support that. That is one of the solutions that would make a lot of sense to me to make the trust fund whole.
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."
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.
|Other candidates on Social Security:||Chris Dodd on other issues:|
Newly appointed in 2009;
special election in 2010:
Announced retirement as of 2010:
Senate races in 2010:
AK:Miller(R) vs.McAdams(D) vs.Murkowski(I)
CA:Boxer(D) vs.Fiorina(R) vs.Lightfoot(L)
FL:Rubio(R) vs.Crist(I) vs.Meek(D) vs.DeCastro(C) vs.Snitker(L)
KS:Johnston(D) vs.Moran(R) vs.Bellis(Rfm)
OH:Fisher(R) vs.Portman(D) vs.Deaton(C)
VT:Leahy(D) vs.Britton(R) vs.Freilich(I)
Senate Votes (analysis)