WHEN DEMOCRATS TALK ABOUT SAVING SOCIAL SECURITY, WATCH OUT!

They Have A History Of Taxing It, Raiding It And Proposing That The Government Invest It In The Stock Market! And Now, They Have No Plan To Save It!!

Democrats “took no action to save Social Security during the two years of the Clinton administration that they were the majority party in Congress. Nor have they offered a plan since they earned minority status.”
(Editorial, “Social Security,” The [Jacksonville] Florida Times-Union, December 3, 1998)

Thanks To The Democrats, 1 In 5 Seniors Now Pay More Taxes On Social Security Benefits. The 1993 budget reconciliation resulted in higher taxes for an additional 9 million senior citizens. These affected retirees were anticipated to “pay an average $1,180 tax on their Social Security benefits [starting] in 2001.”
(“GOP Pushes End To 1993 Hike In Taxes On Social Security Benefits,” The Cato Institute Website, www.socialsecurity.org, July 27, 2000)

Not A Single Republican Voted To Raise Social Security Benefit Taxes On America’s Seniors. As part of the Clinton/Gore economic package, Democrats passed one of the largest tax increases in history - $357 billion in tax increases between 1993 to 1998. One of the primary elements of the Clinton/Gore package taxed up to 85 percent of Social Security benefits, rather than the existing level of 50 percent, for single seniors earning more than $25,000 a year or couples earning more than $32,000.
(1993 CQ Almanac, p. 86)

No Republicans Voted For The FY 1994 House Budget Reconciliation.
(H.R. 2264, Agreement To The Conference Report, CQ Vote #406: Passed 218-216: R 0-175; D 217-41; I 1-0, August 5, 1993)

No Republicans Voted For The FY 1994 Senate Budget Reconciliation/Passage.
(H.R. 2264, Final Passage Of The Bill To Raise Taxes And Cut Mandatory Spending, CQ Vote #190: Passed 50-49: R 0-43; D 49-6, With Vice President Al Gore Casting A “Yea” Vote, June 24, 1993)

No Republicans Voted For The FY 1994 Senate Budget Reconciliation/Adoption.
(H.R. 2264, Adoption Of The Conference Report, CQ Vote #247: Adopted 51-50: R 0-44; D 50-6, With Vice President Al Gore Casting A “Yea” Vote, August 6, 1993)

Which Party’s Vice President Was Proud To Raise Taxes On Social Security? The Democrats!

Al Gore Is Proud Of His Vote To Increase Taxes On Seniors. “I’ll tell you, that’s the best vote I’ve ever cast in my career because it really made the biggest difference.”
(Al Gore, Remarks At The AFL-CIO Transportation Trades Convention, July 21, 2000)

Gore Proposed Raising Taxes On Social Security In 1988. During his failed 1988 presidential bid, Al Gore proposed “imposing additional taxes on Social Security benefits for upper-income retirees.”
(Robert S. McIntyre And Jonathan M. Crystal, “Who, Me? Taxes? What The Candidates Say,” The Washington Post, January 24, 1988)

Gore Flip-Flopped – In 1980 He Opposed Taxing Social Security. “I sincerely believe that any plan to tax Social Security benefits would place an unforgivable burden on our senior citizens who are currently trying to enjoy their retirement years . . . . Taxing Social Security benefits would undermine any incentive for a person to save part of his lifetime earnings.”
(Al Gore, “What’s Happening In Washington,” Carthage Courier, February 21, 1980)

Gore To Seniors: Freeze! According to inside reports, Gore was one of several White House insiders who initially favored freezing Social Security cost of living adjustments (COLAs). The plan was to propose a COLA freeze and then drop it, making it easier to get a tax increase on benefits.
(Elizabeth Drew, On the Edge: The Clinton Presidency, Touchstone, 1994, p. 69-70)

Gore Did Nothing To Relieve The Payroll Tax Burden. “Gore support[ed] lower taxes only in the form of federally targeted tax credits for education and kids. He brag[ged] that, as a result, middle-class tax burdens have fallen. But this ignore[d] the Social Security payroll tax burden: Seventy percent of wage earners pay more in payroll taxes than in income taxes. In fact, the combined payment for FICA and income taxes as a share of total wages and salaries has grown from 22.5 percent [in 1995] to 26.5 [in 1999].”
(Lawrence Kudlow, “Tax Man,” National Review, April 19, 1999)

Which Party Led The Repeal Of The 1993 Social Security Tax Increase? The Republicans! House Republicans Voted Twice To Repeal The Social Security Tax Hike. In 1995, the House voted 246-188 to repeal the Clinton/Gore Social Security tax increase. In 2000, the House voted 265-159 to repeal the long criticized tax hike on Social Security benefits. The 1993 Clinton/Gore economic package raised taxes by $357 billion.
(H.R. 1215, CQ #295: Passed 246-188: R 219-11; D 27-176; I 0-1, April 5, 1995; H.R. 4865, CQ #450: Passed 265-159: R 212-3; D 52-155; I 1-1, July 27, 2000; 1993 CQ Almanac, p. 86)

Which Party Proposed Yet Another Social Security Tax Increase? The Democrats!

Democrat Congressman Peter DeFazio (D-OR) Sponsored A Social Security Reform Bill To Increase Payroll Taxes And Produce Benefit Cuts For Seniors. The Social Security Stabilization and Enhancement Act of 2001 would have increased payroll taxes on Social Security and resulted in a benefit cut for seniors. Fortunately, the Act died in the House Committee on Ways and Means.
(H.R. 3315, Referred To The House Committee On Ways And Means, November 16, 2001)

The Act Would Have Resulted In A Payroll Tax Increase. The act would have lifted the “cap” on payroll taxes, which only applies to the first $84,900 in wages under current law. The payroll tax would apply to all of a worker’s wages, but workers would not have received credit for these extra taxes. A worker earning $150,000 a year would pay an extra $8,100 in taxes each year, but receive no extra benefits.
(“Social Security Reform,” The Cato Institute, August 28, 2002)

Would have been the biggest tax increase in history – $1.2 trillion over ten years;

The Act Would Have Resulted In Benefit Cuts. The Act would have based Social Security payments on a worker’s 38 highest earning years, rather than the current 35-year system.
(“Social Security Reform,” The Cato Institute, August 28, 2002)

DEMOCRATS RAIDED THE SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS DURING YEARS OF PEACE AND PROSPERITY

In The Following Fiscal Years, President Clinton Presided Over Federal Budgets That Raided The Social Security Surplus By These Dollar Amounts:
(Note: The majority of the dollar amounts listed below were paid for largely by Social Security trust funds.)

(“Historical Table 1.1, Budget Of The United States Government, FY 2002,” Office Of Management And Budget, 2002)

Tim Russert Noted That Democrats Promised Not To Touch The “Lockbox” But Did Anyway. “[T]he Democrats said, ‘Well, we’re not going to touch the Social Security surplus, the lockbox,’ and their economic plan, put forward by leading Senate Democrats, in fact, spends the Social Security surplus.”
(CNBC’s “Tim Russert,” May 10, 2002)

Representative Gephardt (D-MO) Voted For Clinton Administration Budgets That Raided The Social Security Surplus In Fiscal Years 1994 And 1995.
(H.R. 2264, CQ Vote #406: Adopted 218-216: R 0-175; D 217-41; I 1-0, August 5, 1993; H. Con. Res. 218, CQ Vote #161: Adopted 220-183: R 0-166; D 219-17; I 1-0, May 5, 1994)

What’s $925 Billion Among Friends? Gephardt Said “That’s Good Enough” To Balance The Budget. “We’ve got to get off this idea that [balance] has to be exactly mathematically calibrated each and every year or we’re all going to turn into pumpkins. We’ve got to get people to understand that if you’re below one percent of [GDP], that’s good enough, thank you.” One percent of GDP has averaged more than $925 billion annually since Representative Gephardt’s statement.
(James Fallows, “A Democrat Who Admits It,” The Atlantic Monthly, November, 1997; “National Income And Product Accounts Table 1.1,” Bureau Of Economic Analysis, August 29, 2002)

Senator Daschle (D-SD) Voted For Clinton Administration Budgets That Raided The Social Security Surplus In Fiscal Years 1994, 1995, And 1998.
(H.R. 2264, CQ Vote #247: Adopted 51-50: R 0-44; D 50-6, With Vice President Al Gore Casting A “Yea” Vote, August 6, 1993; H. Con. Res. 218, CQ Vote #113: Adopted 53-46: R 2-42; D 51-4, May 12, 1994; H.R. 2014, CQ Vote #211: Adopted 92-8: R 55-0; D 37-8, July 31, 1997)

Vice President Gore Supported Clinton’s Proposal To Invest The Social Security Surplus In The Stock Market. In 1999, “President Clinton proposed . . . transferring 62 percent of projected budget surpluses to Social Security, to put more than $2.7 billion into the system over the next 15 years. He said about $700 billion of it should be invested in the stock market for increased returns. Gore support[ed] the administration plan.”
(Walter R. Mears, “No Avoiding The High-Voltage Issue In This Campaign,” The Associated Press, November 27, 1999)

But When Gore Was Campaigning For President, He Said The Clinton/Gore Proposal Was “No Longer Necessary.” “[A]ides said Gore believes a Clinton administration plan to use the stock market to bolster Social Security [was] no longer necessary. President Clinton had proposed [in 1999] with Gore’s support getting new revenue for Social Security by having government invest in the market . . . . ‘[Gore] doesn’t think that’s necessary any more,’ said Hattaway.”
(Sandra Sobieraj, “Gore Fund-Raising In Florida,” The Associated Press, April 7, 2000)

Gore Then Flip-Flopped Again, Saying The Clinton/Gore Administration Did Not Make The Proposal At All – But In Fact They Did. “We didn’t really propose it. We talked about the idea.”
(Dan Balz And Terry M. Neal, “Bush Hit On Social Security,” The Washington Post, May 2, 2000)

Despite The Democrats’ Proposal, The Government Should Not Take Over The Role Of A Private Investor. “With large (and hidden) risks and uncertain benefits, policy makers should reject the idea of centralized investment. The United States has the largest and most sophisticated financial markets in the world, fully capable of managing the investments of American workers. The government does not belong in this line of business.”
(Carolyn L. Weaver, “How Not To Reform Social Security,” American Enterprise Institute, August 1998)

In 2001, The Democrats Again Proposed The Government Invest Social Security Funds In The Stock Market. “The [proposal] marked the first time that Democrats have countered Bush’s plan to rescue Social Security with a stock strategy of their own. But, unlike Bush, they would leave it to the government to do the investing and take the inherent risks.”
(Robert A. Rosenblatt, “Democrats Venture Into Realm Of Social Security Privatization,” Los Angeles Times, July 25, 2001)

Under President Bush’s Reform Plan, The Government Is Strictly Forbidden From Investing In The Stock Market.
(“Strengthening Social Security And Creating Personal Wealth For All Americans,” The President’s Commission On Strengthening Social Security, December 21, 2001)

The Cost Of Social Security Will Exceed Payroll Tax Revenues In 2017. “Social Security spending will exceed projected tax collections in 2017. These deficits will quickly balloon to alarming proportions. After adjusting for inflation, annual deficits will reach $96 billion in 2021, $205 billion in 2026, and $324 billion in 2034.”
(David C. John, “A Guide To The New 2002 Social Security Trustees’ Report,” The Heritage Foundation, WebMemo #91, March 29, 2002)

Between 2017 And 2076, Social Security Deficits Will Total Over $25 Trillion -- This Money Will Have To Come From Increased Taxes Or Lower Benefits. “From 2017 to 2076, Social Security will run payroll tax deficits worth over $25 trillion (in today’s dollars). To restore solvency under the current [Social Security] program, we can either increase payroll taxes by over 50 percent – from the current 12.4 percent to almost 20 percent – or reduce benefits by over one-quarter.”
(Andrew G. Biggs, “Who’s Cutting What?: Comparing Costs And Benefits In The Social Security Reform Debate,” The Cato Institute, September 10, 2002)

By 2041, The Social Security Trust Fund Will Be Completely Exhausted, Leaving Social Security Unable To Borrow Any More Money From General Revenues. At this point, Social Security will be completely insolvent and, by law, benefits will be cut unless something is done to reform the program.
(David C. John, “A Guide To The New 2002 Social Security Trustees’ Report,” The Heritage Foundation, WebMemo #91, March 29, 2002)

The Democrat Do-Nothing Plan Is “Bad News For Younger Workers.” “According to the 2002 [Social Security Trustees] Report, any worker who is under the age of 26 today will reach full retirement age after the trust fund is exhausted. Unless Congress act[s] soon, they can look forward to paying full Social Security taxes throughout their careers, but only receiving 75 percent or less of their promised benefits. In addition, they will have to pay about $5 trillion (in today’s dollars) in additional general taxes in order to repay the Social Security trust fund.”
(David C. John, “A Guide To The New 2002 Social Security Trustees’ Report,” The Heritage Foundation, WebMemo #91, March 29, 2002)

The Democrat Do-Nothing Plan Is Bad News For Women And Low-Income Workers. A 25 year old, low-wage earning woman who retires in 2042 should, under current law, receive $896 per month (in 2001 dollars), but “because Social Security will be insolvent in 2042, by law the program can pay her only $655 per month (with larger cuts in future years).” Based on one of the President’s Commission’s models, if this woman had a personal retirement account, she would receive $986 per month, more than the current system promises and more than it could afford to pay.
(Andrew G. Biggs, “Who’s Cutting What?: Comparing Costs And Benefits In The Social Security Reform Debate,” The Cato Institute, September 10, 2002)

The Models Proposed By President Bush’s Bipartisan Commission, Chaired By Former Democrat Senator Patrick Moynihan (D-NY), Would Reduce The Amount Of On-Budget Revenue Required To Keep Social Security Solvent And Permanently Secure The Program’s Solvency. Under current law, over $22 trillion of non-Social Security general revenue will be required to pay for Social Security benefits between 2017 and 2076. Commission Model 1 reduces that cost to $20 trillion. Commission Models 2 and 3 cost dramatically less – $7 trillion and $10 trillion respectively. In addition, under the Commission models, these transition costs are one-time investments, while under current law, there will continue to be “large, permanent deficits” requiring additional funds after 2075.
(“Memorandum Of The Chief Actuary,” Social Security Administration, July 9, 2002; Andrew G. Biggs, “Who’s Cutting What?: Comparing Costs And Benefits In The Social Security Reform Debate,” The Cato Institute, September 10, 2002)

President Clinton And The Democrats Had No Plan. They Refused To Even Study The Challenges Faced By Social Security.

Clinton Vetoed Now-Former Congressman Archer’s (R-TX) Proposal To Create A Bipartisan Commission To Reform The Social Security System. “Rep. Bill Archer, a Republican from Texas, accused Mr. Clinton of playing politics by refusing to endorse a bi-partisan commission he proposed earlier this year. It was approved by Congress but vetoed by Mr. Clinton. Mr. Archer said Mr. Clinton is the first president among the past six to refuse to sign on to a special commission that attempted to reform Social Security or to even say which type of reform he supports.”
(Peter Morton, “U.S. Takes Another Stab At Pension Reforms,” National Post, December 8, 1998)

University Of Illinois Professor Jeffrey R. Brown Said Critics Of The President’s Commission Have No Plan Of Their Own. “The very groups that have most criticized this commission have yet, to my knowledge, to come forward with a plan that will achieve these kind of financial objectives [that are necessary to sustain Social Security] . . . . And until they do, until someone comes forward with a plan that doesn’t include personal accounts that shows how we can do economically meaningful increases in national savings, then as far as I’m concerned, personal accounts are really the only game in town.”
(Dr. Jeffrey Brown, Remarks At Cato Institute Events Series: “How Would The President’s Commission’s Plans Affect Young Americans?” September 12, 2002)

Former Senators Bob Kerrey (D-NE) And Warren Rudman (R-NH) Said Critics Of The President’s Plan Should Put Up Or Shut Up. “Critics . . . should come up with their own plans for shoring up Social Security. . . . If we do not have the political will to solve the Social Security problem now, we can’t hope to do so when the baby boomers start collecting benefits . . . . Not acting is itself a choice – one that has grim consequences for today’s midlife adults and even bigger ones for their children. Politicians of both parties should get behind specific reform plans or be held accountable for supporting the consequences of the Do Nothing Plan.”
(Senator Bob Kerrey And Senator Warren Rudman, Op-Ed, “Social Security Shell Game,” The Washington Post, August 12, 2002)

Senators John Breaux (D-LA) And Judd Gregg (R-NH) Commended President Bush For Accepting “The Challenge” Of Instituting Social Security Reform. “Nearly four years ago we joined to forge a bipartisan compromise – a venture that has, unfortunately, proven that playing politics with Social Security is more attractive than finding a solution. The partisanship has escalated over the past two years, with Democrats and Republicans challenging each other to take on Social Security. Now President Bush has accepted the challenge. We must act quickly to institute reform. . . . [T]he current Social Security system is unsustainable and . . . changes must be made to be sure money is there to support the baby boomers and beyond.”
(Senator John Breaux And Senator Judd Gregg, Op-Ed, “Social Security: Let’s End The Political Football,” The Washington Post, July 26, 2001)

Here you are! Mindy and Sean won. YEA! I don't think the Dems. are used to being confronted and debated on any issue...they've owned the soapbox for so many years. We're mad as H&*% ...after Daschle and 9-11, etc.,etc., so they want a fight...they got a fight.

Wasn't that great! Sean wouldn't let the RAT get by with her yelling and covering up what Mindy was saying! Sean just gets better and better. It is the moron other half that bugs me in total. Half the time he has his facts wrong or at least half the time!

I'm under 26. I'm screwed by SS. It burns me up that i'm going to lose hundreds of thousands of dollars over my life to this @E$@#$#ing SCAM!

I point this out to liberal friends and they acknowledge it but, it's so far off, they don't seem to care. I feel like I'm trapped in a nightmare and can't wake up.

I want completely out of SS as well as Medicare and Medicaid. I've had too much experience recently with Medicare, but I know firsthand how worthlessly inefficient it is. It is worthless. The people there are bureaucrats, so they hate their lives, their jobs, and you for interrupting their tax-payer subsidized coffee-drinking time.

Republicans must do some figures on what young people will make and what they'll pay and lose into this rathole and do an MTV-style ad campaign to reach the young voters. I'm not sure it would work, but something needs to reach the yong people who don't know this problem exists and how they will be personally adversely affected by it.

I agree with you 100%! I think it should be optional myself! I cannot believe with Medicare there is no cut-off on the amount you make and can stop donating! Instead medicare takes a certain percentage all the way up to the highest salary. That is just flat out wrong!

Re: Medicare

You pay into it all of your working life and then, when you get old and want to use medicare, you have to liquidate all of your assets except $2000 and your house. That is flat-out morally wrong.

Maybe i'm naive, but a private health insurance policy wouldn't have such a "destitution" clause. At least, I wouldn't sign it if it did. Yeah, those politicians care. They care about spending your money on another hunk of concrete with Robert Byrd's name on it.

Everything you have said is what I believe as well.

There are so many better options but everytime one is mentioned the AARP goes ballistic even when they are told it doesn't affect the people drawing SS money today. You would think people were taking the food out of their mouths the way they talk.

Don't think anyone with medical insurance should be required to pay into medicare for all those years when a lot of people will never use it because they have medical plans that go into retirement. Personally I think it is a rip off!

Forwarded fact sheet.

FDR's phrase was "some small measure".

Of a piece with "the withering away of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

It's blood-sucking pure and simple.

None would be best.

Bush's comission has recognized that many elderly women are living in poverty because of the quirks in the social security system. I know women who are trying to make it on social security retirement of $450/mo. I think most Americans with an average income of $40,000 a year assume that seniors are well taken care of and would be shocked to meet people who worked all of their lives and are old and poor.

Typically, Dems programs abuse the people they claim to care about with little stipends. Meanwhile, they rip off the taxpayers so that they retire to elegant landed estates.

Furthermore, it is clear to me that they were up to their eyes in hyping the "new economy" and creating the tech speculative bubble.

You are so right about a lot of older women who survive on very little. They really need help and should have been helped years ago instead of the DemocRATs going around scaring them.

AARP has done a louzy job too IMO as they have fallen for the same scare tactics and reported them to their members as the truth. That to me is irresponsible on their part.

My Mom told AARP to take their magazine and keep it several years ago after they kept lying in articles.

Medicare needs drastic overhauling. Anyone who has had to deal with them on behalf of elderly parents knows this. Furthermore, most people do not realize that once you get to be 65, you MUST use Medicare. If you are eligible for Medicare, that is how the doctor must be paid. Period.

Many people who have not dealt with this program are unaware of the problems, including hospitals dumping elderly and sick people as soon as the approved time for their stay is up, regardless of how sick they are or whether there is someone to care for them at home. This is done because the hospitals cannot afford to keep people for free, and Medicare will not pay for extra days.

Plus, seven years ago when my dad was sick, there wasn't even a local office to complain to...you had to call Illinois long distance on your own dime (and you know how many older people are afraid to use long distance because of the expense) and then talk to a barely intelligible, rude, bureaucrat to try and get a problem resolved.

I would like to see Senator Frist establish an investigatory commission on this whole situation.

I would like to see Senator Frist establish an investigatory commission on this whole situation.

You are right -- that is exactly what should happen. Time the facts were put out and something done instead of the scare tactics each election and nothing gets accomplished.

The SS office in Columbus used to put a balloon on someone's desk when they turned down a claim as well. I would love to see the entire system revamped.

The RATS are in disarray...eradicate the rodents !!

Fire Democrats, Hire Republicans !!

GWB Is The Man !!

Snuff Saddam, NOW !!

Death To all Tyrant's !!

The Second Amendment...
America's Original Homeland Security !!

Freedom Is Worth Fighting For !!

Molon Labe !!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.