[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 49 (Friday, April 26, 2002)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E639-E640]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUND

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. GENE GREEN

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, April 25, 2002

  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I commend to your attention an 
Editorial written by Helen Thomas regarding the state of the Social 
Security Trust Fund. I request that it be submitted for the Record.
  Since its creation in 1935, Social Security has helped lift countless 
seniors out of poverty. This program is a solemn promise that our 
government will provide a meaningful retirement to all the individuals 
who work their entire lives to make this country great.
  As Ms. Thomas points out, the Social Security Board of Trustees 
contends that the current system's funds will not be depleted until 
2041. That's forty years from now. While I do not pretend that the 
pending retirement of the baby-boom generation will put on the strain 
on the system, I agree with Mrs. Thomas' assessment that we certainly 
have time to consider this problem and craft solutions.
  Nonetheless, it seems like some in the Congress and the 
Administration would like to ram through a privatization scheme that 
could endanger the program and would threaten the safety-net that is 
the foundation of our social security program. They scare seniors by 
telling them about long-term shortfalls that might never materialize.
  Mr. Speaker, I think our seniors are smarter than that, and recognize 
that these naysayers have a larger agenda--privatizing this system. I 
strongly oppose any efforts to privatize the system, and believe that 
we can make minor changes that will sustain Social Security without 
jeopardizing our economy or the program. We need to make sure Social 
Security continues to provide the retirement safety net not only for 
our parent's generation, but also for our generation and our children's 
generation.

                   [Houston Chronicle, Apr. 10, 2002]

               Social Security Fine; Why Rush To Fix It?

                           (By Helen Thomas)

       If it ain't broke, don't fix it. And the Social Security 
     fund ain't broke.
       In fact, it will be solvent until 2041, three years later 
     than projected last year, according to a new report from the 
     Social Security Board of Trustees.
       The March 26 report says the system could run smoothly for 
     nearly four decades with no cuts in benefits and no other 
     changes.
       So what is all this talk about a crisis?
       President Bush and his cohorts, obsessed with trying to 
     privatize the system, have painted it in doomsday terms. But 
     they are not fooling grass-roots consumers, who increasingly 
     want to keep the program out of the hands of Wall Street 
     brokers.
       The system's 46 million beneficiaries received about $432 
     billion in 2001, and its trust funds totaled $602 billion. 
     But it seems this administration just can't stand the good 
     news. Officials now insist there is a need to assure its 
     solvency for 75 years.
       I ask you, who knows what tomorrow will bring? The system's 
     improved health could be extended even longer if the nation 
     continues to have a strong economy and higher productivity.
       Social Security Commissioner Jo Anne Barnhart admitted last 
     month that the report's projections ``suggest that we have 
     not lost ground in the past year. However, the report still 
     projects that, once the trust funds are exhausted, payroll 
     tax revenues will be sufficient to meet only 73 percent of 
     Social Security benefit obligations under current law. And 
     projections for the late 21st century paint an even bleaker 
     picture.''
       Is anyone dissatisfied at the moment with planning 40 years 
     ahead? In that time, I'm sure, Americans will be resourceful 
     enough to protect this great program, born in 1935 in the New 
     Deal era, that is dedicated to helping the elderly, the 
     disabled and dependent children.
       Under Bush's partial privatization scheme, recipients would 
     be allowed to invest some of their payroll tax money in 
     securities instead of putting it in the Social Security fund.
       It would be ``a fundamental change in the way this program 
     has always worked . . . (from) a guaranteed safety net 
     program to one that would be put at risk in the stock market 
     or bond market.''
       In setting up his Social Security commission to develop a 
     privatization plan, Bush chose former Sen. Daniel Patrick 
     Moynihan, D-N.Y., to co-chair the panel.
       But their best-laid plans went awry when reality set in. 
     First came the roller-coaster stock market, and then came 
     more devastating news--the Enron scandal. Some 4,000 Enron 
     workers had invested heavily in the company's stock, and many 
     lost their life savings. But many executives did not lose. 
     They sold their stock before the company came under federal 
     investigation last fall.
       The disillusionment brought into question the reliability 
     of investing in stocks and bonds and caused Bush and other 
     supporters to pause.
       But only temporarily, it seems. There are still 
     conservatives who remain ideologically opposed to the Social 
     Security program and would like to abolish it.
       However, if the administration continues to pursue its 
     plan, it may pay a big political price.
       A number of anti-privatization coalitions are popping up. 
     One is US Action, a Washington-based grass-roots organization 
     that claims 3 million members and 33 affiliates in 23 states.
       With all the grass-roots pressure and the Enron fallout, I 
     think it would be foolhardy

[[Page E640]]

     of any lawmaker who wants to survive at the polls in November 
     to propose a radical change in the system.
       Bush, of course, is a multi-millionaire. So he won't have 
     to depend on a Social Security check when he leaves the White 
     House. Nor will Moynihan, who collects a number of monthly 
     pension checks from his service in top administration Jobs 
     and from his years on Capitol Hill.
       At one point during Bush's campaign for the presidency, he 
     showed that he did not even know that Social Security is a 
     federal program, Well, he has learned a lot about it since 
     then.
       But he still has more to learn--that it's popular, it works 
     and it ain't broke.

     

                          ____________________