[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 8 (Monday, February 9, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S522-S523]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            ``BEWILDERING BUDGET-SPEAK'' ON SOCIAL SECURITY

 Mr. KYL. Mr. President, millions of Americans, myself 
included, listened intently to what President Clinton had to say about 
Social Security in his State of the Union address. What we heard--or 
what we thought we heard--was a plan by the President to reserve any 
budget surplus that might emerge in the next few years to shore up 
Social Security for future generations.
  It was a plan that drew widespread praise from the public. But now it 
turns out that what we heard is not, according to White House 
spokesmen, what the President really meant. The Washington Post put it 
this way in a February 4 report: ``the ringing simplicity of Clinton's 
call to `save Social Security first' gave way to a fog of bewildering 
budget-speak from the administration's top economic advisers.''
  Here is what OMB spokesman Larry Haas had to say: ``People who think 
it [President Clinton's proposal] shores up Social Security were not 
listening closely.'' Testifying before the Senate Budget Committee, 
Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin admitted that the Clinton budget does 
not include any mechanism that would transfer surpluses to the Social 
Security trust fund.
  Mr. President, why the intricate game of words? Is Social Security 
first or not? Let us take a look.
  Next year--the year covered by President Clinton's proposed budget--
Social Security itself will run an estimated surplus of about $93 
billion. Remember, the system is currently generating surpluses that 
are intended to build up until about the year 2016, when we will have 
to begin using them to pay retirement benefits to 75 million baby 
boomers.
  But the Clinton budget does not set aside this $93 billion Social 
Security surplus. The Clinton budget spends every penny of it on 
general operating expenses of the federal government.
  The practice of using the Social Security nest egg to mask overall 
government deficits dates back to President Lyndon Johnson. Colleagues 
from both sides of the aisle have condemned it for years. It is only 
because President Clinton employs this sleight of hand--counting the 
Social Security surplus in the unified federal budget--that he is able 
to show an overall surplus of $9 billion for next year. If Social 
Security's $93 billion surplus and the surpluses held in other federal 
trust funds were removed from the calculations, the Clinton budget 
would actually show a deficit of $95.7 billion.
  Even the relatively small surplus that is created by commingling all 
of the funds--that is, after mixing Social Security with the rest of 
the federal budget--is shrunken considerably from what it would have 
been if the President reserved the entire amount for Social Security, 
as he said he would. That is because he devotes the bulk of the 
resulting surplus to a host of new spending initiatives.
  Here are just some of the new programs that President Clinton is 
proposing:
  a new clean water initiative for about $37 million;
  two new farm programs for $14 million;
  $170 million for new mandatory empowerment zones and enterprise 
communities;
  a new program called the Community Empowerment Fund, which will cost 
about $400 million;
  a new $10 million Indian land consolidation pilot program;
  $47 million on a new community adjustment program to help areas 
adversely affected by trade agreements;
  at least eight new education programs totaling over $1.8 billion;
  a new Medicare buy-in program costing $1.5 billion over five years;
  $4.5 billion for five new child-care related programs;
  a new smoking cessation program for $87 million; and
  two new law-enforcement initiatives for $200 million.
  The cost of these new programs is estimated to be about $120 billion 
to $130 billion over the next five years, and that does not even count 
the myriad increases he proposes for other existing federal programs. 
In other words, some $120 billion to $130 billion of anticipated 
unified budget surpluses are not reserved for Social Security at all, 
but are used to create brand new programs.
  Granted, many of these proposals are appealing, and some address real 
needs in our communities. Granted, some of the spending for these new 
programs is designed to come from the proposed tobacco settlement. But 
if President Clinton is sincere in his desire to reserve 100 percent of 
the surplus for Social Security, how is it that there is so much money 
for so many new programs? Why is the tobacco money not used to boost 
the size of the surplus that could be devoted to Social Security?
  Given the programs I just mentioned a few moments ago, it is obvious 
that Social Security is not really first on President Clinton's list of 
anticipated uses of any unified budget surplus. It is not second or 
even third. It does not make the top 10 list. It is number 26 on

[[Page S523]]

the President's list, after all of these other new programs are 
created. Remember, too, that President Clinton is proposing to spend 
the entire $93 billion surplus that the Social Security system will 
itself generate--spend it on other things.
  So what did President Clinton really mean when he spoke of Social 
Security in his State of the Union? Here is what he said:

       I propose that we reserve 100 percent of the surplus--that 
     is every penny of any surplus--until we have taken all the 
     necessary measures to strengthen the Social Security system 
     for the 21st century.

  His budget clearly spends the surplus, so what hidden meaning could 
there possibly be in his apparently very carefully crafted words?
  Treasury Secretary Rubin explained to the Budget Committee that the 
President was merely declaring his opposition to using surpluses, 
should they materialize, for any purpose other than paying down the 
national debt until Congress and the President have agreed on a long-
term solution that ensures the solvency of the Social Security program. 
In other words, nothing may ever be set aside specifically for Social 
Security.
  Mr. President, I am confused, as I think most Americans are, about 
President Clinton's intentions with respect to Social Security. John 
Rother, chief lobbyist for the American Association of Retired Persons, 
told The Washington Post that many of his members are also confused and 
mistakenly assume the surpluses will be used to pay future Social 
Security benefits.
  Crafting next year's budget, let alone tackling the coming problems 
in the Social Security system and the many other important problems 
facing this administration and the country, requires straight talk and 
straight answers. Either Social Security is first or it is not. Either 
we reserve any surplus for Social Security or we do not. Tell the 
truth, and the American people will support what needs to be done.
  Senior citizens deserve better than to be treated as a political 
football by this President.

                          ____________________