[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 49 (Friday, April 26, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3460-S3461]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      OUR NATION'S FISCAL AFFAIRS

  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise this morning to speak about a 
troubling and increasingly apparent problem that I think concerns the 
fiscal affairs of our great Nation. Each passing month, each passing 
quarter, we become more certain in our recognition that the fiscal 
strategy of our Nation is one that is undermining our future capacity 
and security as a nation.
  I believe we have a failed fiscal strategy as a result of the 
overreaching tax cuts that we had last year, along with, obviously, the 
very significant changed circumstances--economically and with our war 
on terrorism. We have seen a projected surplus of $5.6 trillion over 
the succeeding 10 years virtually evaporate. As I say, each passing 
month and each passing quarter we get new verification of that.
  Today, I read in the newspapers across the country that the latest 
indication of this is becoming even more apparent. Today's reports 
indicate that revenue is coming into the Government at a rate much 
lower than earlier projected. There is now a reason to believe we will 
have a $70 billion revenue shortfall from the projections that occurred 
as recently as a month and a half ago, 6 weeks ago. It is about a $70 
billion revenue shortfall, which will push our budget deficit for this 
year,

[[Page S3461]]

by many estimates, up to $125 billion. A unified budget deficit of that 
magnitude is hard to believe in the context of where we have come from, 
and I certainly believe that requires rethinking our fiscal strategy if 
we are to be responsible about how we manage the fiscal affairs of this 
Nation.
  That is a doubling of the previous estimates of the unified deficit 
and, frankly, it doesn't even count the new spending that is expected 
from President Bush on requests that will deal with antiterrorism and 
homeland defense. For individual spending, whole life, trying to manage 
budgets, I consider this a stark and dangerous problem that could 
undermine the fiscal and, ultimately, the economic health of the 
Nation.
  They highlight a fact that is equally disturbing to me and to a lot 
of my colleagues, which is that this year we are going to use Social 
Security payroll taxes that people had thought would be put in place to 
build up the Social Security trust fund almost completely, if not 
entirely, to fund these deficits.
  I think this is a misuse of the Social Security contributions. I 
think it is one that the American people would be troubled with if they 
understood what was happening. I think it would require us to truly 
rethink our overall fiscal strategy. We should not be using Social 
Security funds to pay for anything other than Social Security, let 
alone financing these tax cuts that are a misallocation of resources 
relative to our Nation's needs--particularly, at a time when we are 
asking people to sacrifice on a whole series of issues regarding our 
national security.
  I think I speak for many, if not most, Democrats in emphasizing this 
point, particularly as it relates to the Social Security trust fund.
  In the long term, raids on Social Security threaten the security of 
hard-working American families. But there is also a second danger with 
regard to Social Security that is equally as important as the fiscal 
danger, and I think that is very important, quite obviously.
  Last December, President Bush's Social Security Commission prepared 
privatization plans that call for deep cuts in Social Security 
benefits. In fact, it talks about taking $1 trillion out of the Social 
Security trust fund for transitionary costs to a privatization program.
  Under these proposals that are on the table, some of the cuts in 
Social Security may be as much as 25 percent for those who will be 
retiring in about 20 years and could be as much as 45 percent for later 
retirees.
  Think about that: 25 percent to 45 percent. The average Social 
Security benefit for an American is $10,000. We ought to put that in 
context. If we are going to take 25 percent, or $2,500, away from that 
$10,000 or, God forbid, the 45 percent, or a $4,500 cut, and apply it 
to the $10,000, one wonders how our seniors are going to meet their 
financial obligations with this poor social safety net.
  Mr. President, $10,000 is not lavish, but the idea of a $5,500 
benefit seems pretty scary in a world where one can spend that much on 
prescription drugs in a given year, before even paying for rent and 
other needs. Certainly in New Jersey--and I am sure this is the case in 
Vermont--nobody is going to be living high on the hog on $10,000, and 
certainly not $5,500.
  We have a real issue with privatization of Social Security, as well 
as with this fiscal problem. They come together, and this is what I 
wish to talk about.
  I know a lot of people believe we have to fight these cuts, and we 
probably will over the long run, because most people think they are 
just wrong. But we also need to make sure Social Security has the 
resources to maintain the benefits structure that is in place. The 
entire Social Security shortfall, according to the Social Security 
actuaries--that is the administration itself--is $3.7 trillion over the 
75-year measured period. That may sound like a lot of money, and I 
guess it is.
  I sit at Everett Dirksen's old desk, and he used to say: A billion 
here, a billion there is a lot of money. Mr. President, $3.7 trillion 
is a lot more money, but it is not a lot in the long-term fiscal 
potential of our Nation. In fact, last year's tax cuts alone will cost 
the Nation, over that 75-year period, $8.7 trillion. So we have $3.7 
trillion to secure Social Security, and there is an $8.7 trillion tax 
cut. We can put those two together and say: Where are our priorities? 
What should we be emphasizing?
  The Social Security shortfall is less than a half of the cost of last 
year's tax cut. Some tax cut was very good, and most of us would argue 
that is very much the case. It is just a matter of whether it is 
overreaching and whether it is, in the context of today's world, 
something we should continue to pursue.
  Like most Democrats, I am fully committed--I actually think most of 
us in this Chamber are committed--to protecting and defending Social 
Security. This is an issue that deserves full and complete debate. 
Unfortunately, a number of folks, for political strategy reasons--
particularly the leaders in the House and also President Bush, I 
suspect--have been trying to push this issue to the back burner. I do 
not think we can do that in this context of the deteriorating fiscal 
health of the Nation. We need to have this debate about the future of 
Social Security in front of the elections this year so that the 
American people can express their points of view.

  Interestingly, the chairman of the Republican National Committee just 
this week, Gov. Mark Racicot, said Congress should debate Social 
Security privatization this year. I embrace that statement and think he 
is right. As a matter of fact, Mr. Levin, the distinguished Senator 
from Michigan, and I have sent a letter commending Governor Racicot for 
making his statement and encouraging that debate.
  Social Security is going to impact every American--those retired 
today but, more importantly, those who will be retiring in the future.
  I call on my colleagues in the House and Senate to get on with this 
privatization debate so that the public can make its choice whether 
they believe we ought to privatize, whether we ought to pull out and 
undermine guaranteed benefits that the American public has come to 
expect.
  I do not think they are aware of the nature of some of the 
recommendations that have come out of the Commission, so-called ``Save 
Social Security,'' that President Bush put together and came up with 
its report that would lead to 25- to 45-percent cuts in Social Security 
benefits.
  I come here today to make two points. We have a serious reason to 
have a debate about the changed conditions of our fiscal policy. They 
are going to put pressure on a whole series of choices we make. As we 
go deeper and deeper in debt, and as we erode that $5.6 trillion that 
was the basis of how we made our judgments over the last 18 months, and 
certainly with regard to that tax cut, we need to understand that the 
world is different today, and it is particularly different as to how we 
are going to fund and secure Social Security in the months, years, and 
decades ahead. I, for one, think we need to get on with that debate, a 
fair debate, because it is important for the American people to 
participate in that process.
  I hope all of us will stand up for those issues in which we believe. 
I certainly do, and I believe my colleagues on this side of the aisle 
believe strongly that Social Security should be placed first in our 
fiscal priorities, right after securing our national security and 
national defense.
  Those are the points I wanted to make because I believe the numbers 
are real, they are telling, and they make it very clear that we need to 
have this overall review of our fiscal strategy in the context of a 
very seriously deteriorating situation.
  I thank you, Mr. President, for this opportunity.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________