[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 45 (Friday, March 10, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3813-S3814]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                         ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

                                 ______


                SOCIAL SECURITY AND THE BALANCED BUDGET

 Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, for the benefit of my colleagues, I 
wrote a newspaper column intended to end much of the confusion 
surrounding Social Security and its role in the recent debate on the 
balanced budget constitutional amendment.
  I ask that the text be printed in the Record.
  The column follows:

  A Reality Check on Social Security and the Balanced Budget Amendment

       There is some confusion about the role of Social Security 
     and the Balanced Budget Amendment. Let me answer a few of the 
     questions that people are asking:
       Would the Balanced Budget Amendment treat Social Security 
     any differently than it is being treated now?
       No. And if you are confused on this point, don't feel 
     badly. One of the senators who participated in the debate 
     didn't understand this either.
       Does the Balanced Budget Amendment voted on recently treat 
     Social Security differently than the amendment voted on in 
     1994?
       The wording is identical on anything related to Social 
     Security.
       Would the Social Security system be better off with or 
     without a Balanced Budget Amendment?
       Much better off with a Balanced Budget Amendment. The great 
     threat to Social Security is the growing federal debt. If it 
     continues as projected, the United States government will 
     eventually ``solve'' its problem like all nations with huge 
     debts have historically done, by printing more and more 
     money, making the dollar worth less and less. When you debase 
     the value of the dollar, you also debase the value of the 
     United States bonds that are the security for Social 
     Security. If the dollar becomes worth ten cents, the bonds 
     held by Social Security also drop 90 percent in value. That 
     devastates Social Security. Those of us fighting for a 
     Balanced Budget Amendment are trying to prevent this economic 
     catastrophe from happening, but that is where we are now 
     headed.
       As a strong defender of Social Security, why didn't you 
     vote to exempt Social Security in the Balanced Budget 
     Amendment?
       For two reasons.
       First, I believe everything should be in the budget. As 
     soon as you start making exceptions, where do you stop? I 
     also believe it is important to include Social Security 
     because in less than 30 years, Social Security will spend 
     more than it takes in. We should have an obligation to 
     protect Social Security well into the future, and not use the 
     excuse that it isn't our responsibility.
       Second, to make an exception of Social Security would 
     permit a huge loophole in the amendment. Future Congresses 
     could put welfare under Social Security, senior citizen 
     housing, and virtually anything else. Since the word 
     ``security'' is used, a creative Congress could even put the 
     defense budget under Social Security.
       Will there be changes in Social Security programs?
       Apart from balancing the budget, there will have to be, for 
     the long-term future of Social Security. My guess is that 
     those on Social Security retirement now will experience no 
     change in their retirement, but to prepare for a less rosy 
     future, for example, 
     [[Page S3814]] there may have to be a one-half of one percent 
     increase in the tax for Social Security on employers and 
     employees, and some type of gradual increase in retirement 
     age, worked out with the senior groups. If we were to raise 
     the retirement age by one month a year for twelve years, over 
     that period the retirement age would be raised by one year, 
     and save billions of dollars for the retirement fund.
       Also, Medicare will face serious shortfalls in only a few 
     years. Here I favor changes now. For example, why shouldn't 
     everyone with an income of over $100,000 a year pay for his 
     or her own physician's fees? Hospital coverage and other 
     features could remain the same. That one change would save 
     billions of dollars.
       Do Senators like Kent Conrad and Byron Dorgan of North 
     Dakota have no valid point of concern?
       They do. Since 1969 the federal government has included 
     Social Security surpluses in our budgets so that the deficits 
     would not look so bad. I have joined Sen. Fritz Hollings of 
     South Carolina in trying to stop that practice, but 
     administrations of both parties like to make their budgets 
     look better.
       During the evening negotiations on the Balanced Budget 
     Amendment on the night the vote was first scheduled, Sen. 
     Conrad was able to get an agreement to gradually move away 
     from this practice, but he finally rejected the offer. One of 
     my colleagues in the Senate told me, ``Sen. Conrad was on the 
     verge of a great victory for the Social Security cause and 
     for sensible budgeting, but he blew it.'' I believe that 
     judgment is premature. It is still possible that something 
     can be worked out.
       For the sake of Social Security recipients, and for the 
     sake of the future of our country, I hope something will 
     be.
     

                          ____________________