[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 50 (Thursday, April 24, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H1857-H1858]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  POSSIBLE CHANGES FOR SOCIAL SECURITY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Sanford] is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Michigan [Mr. Smith] just 
talked about some of the problems facing Social Security if we do 
nothing to address what the trustees; again, not what Republicans or 
Democrats have said, but what the trustees have said if we do nothing.
  I would like to talk for just a moment about not just the problems 
inherent in Social Security, because it has done a lot of great things 
for my mother, for my grandparents, but we need to address some of the 
benefits that might come if we looked at changing Social Security.
  I think, first, we might want to define what we mean by changing 
Social Security. I do not believe, and I do not think anybody believes, 
that changing Social Security ought to mean taking Social Security away 
from existing retirees or those about to retire. However, what I do 
believe in terms of changing Social Security is that we ought to begin 
at least talking about the possibility of, while leaving seniors whole, 
looking at and exploring options for young people.
  Mr. Speaker, what I have consistently heard from young people in my 
district is that they do not think they are going to get all of the 
Social Security that is due them. One of the interesting things to look 
at is I guess a number of the benefits that might come with change.
  One of the benefits would be just saving the system, because what the 
trustees have said is that if we do nothing, it goes bankrupt in about 
30 years. But more important than just saving the system, the whole 
purpose of Social Security ought to be a noble retirement. If one earns 
more with their Social Security investment, they can retire with more.
  What the Social Security trustees have said today is that on average, 
people today earn about 1.9 percent on their quote ``Social Security 
investment,'' and most of the folks I talk to in my home district say 
that they could earn more than 1.9 percent on their retirement 
investment.
  What this means is, if you take somebody earning $24,000 a year and 
if one group earns 1.9 percent on their investment and another group 
earns 5 percent on their investment, it does not take a rocket 
scientist to know that second group is going to earn more and end up 
with more in their retirement, and I think that to be a very big 
benefit of this possibility of changing Social Security.
  Another benefit that I think is worth mentioning is the whole notion 
of retirement age. A pay-as-you-go system, I think, comes at a 
tremendous cost in terms of human happiness, because with a pay-as-you-
go system, we all have to retire at the same age. Yet I can walk down 
the grocery store aisle and look at 25 different kinds of detergent, I 
can look at 30 different kinds of toothpaste, I can look at a long 
magazine stack of different kinds of magazines, but I cannot choose for 
me when I want to retire, and I think that that, again, comes at a 
tremendous cost in terms of human happiness, because we are all 
different.
  In my home State of South Carolina, we have Strom Thurmond, who would 
like to work until he is 100 or 150, I am not sure, but he wants to 
work basically until he dies. And I say God bless him; go for it. But I 
have many other friends who say that work is fine, but fishing is even 
better. I want to retire when I am 50. With the idea of personal 
savings accounts, you could choose for yourself when you want to retire 
rather than a Congressman or a Senator or a bureaucrat in Washington 
choosing for you when you want to retire.
  Another benefit I think worth mentioning, and again, there are many, 
but one other worth mentioning would be we could do something about the 
national savings rate. Right now in our country we have a savings rate 
that

[[Page H1858]]

bumps along somewhere between 3 and 5 percent.
  Well, in China, they have a savings rate of about 40 percent. In 
Singapore, they have a savings rate in the mid 30's. In South Korea, 
they have a savings rate in the high 30's. In Chile, where they 
instituted this system, they have a savings rate in the high 20's, and 
here we are bumping along at 3 to 5 percent.
  We cannot advance a modern industrial society on a 3-percent national 
savings rate, because the thing that politicians leave off while they 
will talk about the fact that we need to do something about standard of 
living in America, they will not talk about what it is that affects 
standard of living in America, and that is that savings drives 
investment, which drives productivity gain, which drives standard of 
living.
  In short, if you were to have a wood-cutting contest in the backyard, 
and you gave one fellow a little hand ax that cost you 3 bucks, and you 
gave another person a chain saw that cost $300, the person with the 
$300 chain saw, however much weaker or however slight, would be able to 
end up with a bigger stack of wood and consequently more in the way of 
income.
  I know that I am eroding away at my 5 minutes here, so I will call it 
quits. But the point is to say that there are many benefits that might 
come with this proposed talk of changing Social Security so that we 
save it for the next generation and so that my three boys get Social 
Security as well.

                          ____________________