Skip to comments.Democrats Stopped the Social Security Lock Box - Make them Pay
Posted on 10/19/2010 8:41:34 AM PDT by Loud Mime
The Democrats have a weakness that should be exploited by the Republicans: The Social Security and Medicare Lock Box Act.
They used their Senate powers to stop this legislation at the most opportune moment; the voters need to know of this.
During the 106th Congress, the lock box act passed the House with a strong vote. The bill was a simple act to save Social Security and Medicare funds from other uses by Congress - - nothing else.
In the Senate, the Democrats stopped it from receiving a vote. Every Democrat Senator voted against cloture. The bill died in the Senate. Since that time, our unfunded liabilities for these programs have skyrocketed past 100 trillion dollars. And the Democrats, despite their powers, will not enact this law.
Thank You, Democrats!
Senator Harry Reid and Senator Barbara Boxer voted against cloture.
We should ask them why.
Heres the information on the Senate vote:
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 106th Congress - 1st Session as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate Vote Summary
Question: On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on H.R.1259 )
Vote Number: 170 Vote Date: June 16, 1999, 02:46 PM
Required For Majority: 3/5 Vote Result: Cloture Motion Rejected Measure Number: H.R. 1259 (Social Security and Medicare Safe Deposit Box Act of 1999 )
Measure Title: A bill to amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to protect Social Security surpluses through strengthened budgetary enforcement mechanisms.
Vote Counts: YEAs 55
NAYs 44 Not Voting 1
Let the Fiorina and Angle people know of this.
The “lock box” is an insane idea. Where are they going to put the funds?
Great Post...... I nominate this for Post of the day!
The Lockbox was always a scam. This vote just shows how the Dems wanted to keep the sting going. Who got stung? The American Taxpayers
>The lock box is an insane idea. Where are they going to put the funds?
Exactly. It’s just meaningless twaddle. The issue of SS and Medicare going into default has nothing to do with a lockbox or the lack thereof. It has to do with the plans being a Ponzi scheme.
You can’t trick the demographics. Only the two people working to support one retiree.
The lock box does not exist - - the legislation simply directs where the funds go.
Without it, the funds can go anywhere - - as they have.
Of course I am biased... I do not expect to see any Social Security benefits if I ever make it to the age at which I am supposed to receive them.
SS was always an underfunded government run Ponzi scheme that only worked when more $’s were coming in than going out. .gov is hard broke. Perhaps we will be able to sell more bonds to the chinese to support our SS?
For what it is worth the term lockbox suggest that the funds/chits held in SS are ours. There is nothing further from the truth as it was a tax. What do your heirs get when you die? $200 for burial and zip.
I understand your cynicism, but if you read the legislation you’ll see that it is a matter of restricting the spending of SS funds.
The point here is to ask why they voted against it!
Let Boxer and Reid explain their way out of it....it will be great TV!
* Would allocate all Social Security surpluses towards saving Social Security and Medicare by using such surpluses to reduce debt held by the public until Social Security and Medicare reform is enacted. The bill would prohibit the use of Social Security surpluses for any purpose other than reforming Social Security and Medicare.Well, that is essentially what is happening right now. SS surpluses buy bonds to hide the deficit because they are counted in a different account.
* Would provide that it is not in order in the House or Senate to consider concurrent resolutions on the budget or any other legislation that would set forth an on-budget deficit for any fiscal year. This "point of order" provision would not apply to Social Security reform legislation or Medicare reform legislation as defined in this bill. Nice, but a little pointless now. You can't have a deficit unless you really, really want to (as shown by the last term).
* Would provide that any official statement/publication of the surpluses or deficit totals of the U.S. Government, as issued by the Office of Management and Budget or the Congressional Budget Office, shall exclude outlays and receipts of the OASDI program. Separate Social Security budget documents showing OASDI outlays and receipts would be required.This one was good. It would have shown that even during the years Clinton claimed to be running a surplus the general budget excluding SS was still running a deficit (although it was a round-off error in the world of Obama's trillion dollar deficits).
* A supermajority of 60 percent of each House of Congress would be required to override the provisions of the bill.And the whole thing turns to crap with 60 votes. That puts some real gums in the legislation.
So, why did the Democrats vote against it?
I wish to hear their explanation.
Understand it would have placed restrictions on SS entering the coffers, but that doesn’t negate the fact that the government is broke with a $13.6T total deficit and running $1T annual deficits into the future. We will be entering a long cold winter as soon as we begin failing bond auctions and paying substancially higher interest rates. The average maturity of our debt is 4.4 years meaning we not only have to sell more debt in the coming few years, but refinance what we have at substancially higher rates. The die has been cast and it will eat us alive.
At this point neither R’s or D’s matter. Got food?
This thread is posed as an issue for the debates between the Senatorial candidates. I want these questions asked so I can see the likes of Boxer and Reid squirm away their answers.
It will be quite revealing.
Granted, we’re screwed. Who is the more responsible party? The D’s set a scenario that the R’s had to somewhat follow if they wanted to hold even one office.