Sam Brownback on Social Security Republican Sr Senator (KS)

Supports personal Social Security accounts

A: I’ve been in this kind of race before, where my poll numbers are lower than some of the other candidates’, but my positions are consistent with where the base of the party is. I’m an economic conservative. I’m for pro-growth and an alternative flat tax and personal Social Security accounts, restraining federal spending.

Voted to stop the raid on the Social Security Trust Fund

• In 2006, he voted to stop the raid on the Social Security Trust Fund (Roll Call #68, 03/16/06).
• In 2004, he co-sponsored the Ryan-Sununu bill to reform Social Security by allowing for large personal savings accounts (Brownback press release, 09/28/04).
• On the other hand, Senator Brownback voted for and was an outspoken supporter of the 2003 Medicare prescription drug plan (Roll Call #459, 11/25/03), which created a massive unfunded entitlement program, costing over $400 billion over ten years and totaling 1,162 pages in regulatory minutia (Heritage.org, Backgrounder #1860, 06/14/05).

Voted YES 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 YES on Social Security Lockbox & limiting national debt.

Voted YES on allowing Roth IRAs for retirees.

Voted YES on allowing personal retirement accounts.

Rated 0% by the ARA, indicating an anti-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.