[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 14 (Thursday, February 10, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1254-S1255]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            SOCIAL SECURITY

  I will mention one additional item today. That is the aggressive 
debate that is occurring and will continue to occur on the subject of 
Social Security. There is an array of issues that face this country--
some big, some small, some of consequence, some not--and we tend, from 
time to time, to treat the serious too lightly and sometimes the light 
too seriously. But this issue of Social Security is a big issue.
  I was reading something the other day about this from a Knight-Ridder 
column:

       The promises of Social Security retirement is a hoax. Taxes 
     paid by workers are wasted by the government rather than 
     prudently invested, and the so-called reserve fund is no 
     reserve at all because it contains nothing but government 
     IOU's.
       Was that President Bush speaking? No, no. That was the 
     Republican presidential candidate, Alf Landon, in 1936. In 
     1936 that was the message by people who never liked Social 
     Security--those who never liked Social Security and fought 
     against it when it was created never really quit.

  In 1983, the Cato Institute published a paper that served as the 
manifesto for turning over some of Social Security to the private 
sector. It recommended the following: Consistent criticism of Social 
Security to undermine confidence in it. That was part of the strategy. 
Consistently criticize Social Security to undermine confidence. Build a 
coalition of supporters for private accounts, including banks and other 
financial institutions that would benefit from private accounts.
  They have done pretty well. This manifesto going back to Alf Landon, 
going to the Cato Institute in 1983--constantly criticize Social 
Security, undermine it, build a coalition of supporters, banks, and 
others who would benefit from it. They have done pretty well because 
they now have an administration that says Social Security is in crisis.
  It is not, of course. Social Security is a program that has lifted 
tens of millions of senior citizens out of poverty over many decades.
  People are living longer and better lives, so we will have to make 
some adjustments. It does not require major surgery.
  We will have to make some adjustments in Social Security if we do not 
get the kind of economic growth we had in the last 75 years. If we do 
get the kind of growth we had in the economy in the last 75 years, 
Social Security is fine for the next 75 years with no adjustments 
needed. But if we get only 1.9 percent economic growth, as the Social 
Security actuaries predict, we will have to make some adjustments--but 
not major adjustments and not major surgery.

  The President and others are using terms such as ``broke,'' 
``bankrupt,'' ``flat busted,'' in order to demonstrate that something 
has to be done with Social Security. Yet he is offering nothing that 
would address the solvency of Social Security. Nothing. He is 
proposing, instead, the creation of private accounts using a portion of 
the Social Security money. Unfortunately, this would increase the 
problem in Social Security.
  We need to have and will have a very aggressive debate about this 
issue. My feeling is that we ought to do two things: One, we ought to 
preserve and protect Social Security. It is a program that has worked, 
and it continues to work well. It is the bedrock social insurance that 
the elderly rely upon when they reach retirement age. When they reach 
this point at which they are no longer working and have diminished 
income, Social Security is what they can depend on to keep them out of 
poverty.
  Some say: Let's decide to put some of that money in the stock market. 
Well, I am all for private accounts, but not in the Social Security 
system. We have 401(k)s, IRAs, pension programs, and Keogh programs. We 
have done a lot to incentivize private accounts. We now provide about 
$140 billion per year in tax incentives to encourage the use of these 
retirement accounts.
  We ought to continue providing these incentives, and even increase 
them, but not in Social Security. Social Security is not an investment 
account; it is an insurance account. It has always been an insurance 
account.
  A leading spokesperson on the far right said the following a couple 
of weeks ago: Social Security is the soft underbelly of the welfare 
state. Well, if you believe that, then I understand why you do not want 
Social Security, why you do not like Social Security, why you would 
like to take it apart. I understand that. I respect that view, even if 
it is dreadfully wrong. We need to respect different viewpoints. There 
is no reason for all of us to think the same thing all the time.
  Someone once said: When everyone is thinking the same thing, no one 
is thinking very much. So I understand and respect people with 
different viewpoints. If you never liked Social Security, if you 
believe it is part of the welfare state as opposed to an enormously 
successful social insurance program that has worked for 70 years to 
lift the elderly out of poverty, if you really believe it is unworthy 
and you want to take it apart, I understand that. But I do not agree. I 
believe we need to fight as hard as we can to oppose those who would 
dismantle Social Security.
  It is safe to say that none of the people I have ever heard speak 
against Social Security will ever need it. None of them will ever need 
it. Almost all of them speak from a position of financial solvency. In 
most cases, they have the gift of a very solid financial background. 
Well, good for them.
  But maybe they should understand there are a lot of folks in this 
country who reach those declining income years and do not have very 
much. They worked hard and led good lives, but they end up with not 
very much.
  Their aspiration was not to make as much money as they could; it was 
to serve their community. But they did not end up with very much. The 
same is true with a lot of people. They live a good life, do good 
things, help other people, but they do not end up with a lot.
  A friend of mine died about 2 months ago. He was an older man. He was 
close

[[Page S1255]]

to 90 years old. He had a great life. He was a wonderful man.
  After his funeral, his wife sent me a note. She said, very simply: 
Oscar always helped his neighbors, and he always looked out for those 
who were not so well off. That is all she said.
  I thought, what a wonderful thing to say about someone's life. He 
always helped his neighbors and always looked out for those who were 
not so well off. What a great life. He did not make a lot of money, he 
did not die with a huge estate, but he had a great life.
  So does Social Security--the social insurance program that he and 
others know will be there when they reach retirement--enrich their 
lives, make their lives better, allow them to depend on something that 
will be there? You bet it does. It is important.
  I find it interesting that the chant and the mantra in this town, 
from the White House, yes, and from some of our colleagues, is that the 
most important thing for us to do is to eliminate the tax on inherited 
wealth. They say you have to eliminate what they call the death tax. 
But there is no death tax. That is just something a pollster came up 
with.
  My colleague Phil Gramm from Texas was on the floor once, and I 
explained to him, were he to die, his wife would own his entire estate, 
with no tax. So he must be exempt. The fact is, there is no death tax. 
When one spouse dies, the other spouse has a 100-percent exemption, and 
they own all those assets.
  There is, however, a tax not on death but on inherited wealth, in 
certain circumstances. So what we have is a proposal to eliminate the 
tax on inherited wealth, which would largely benefit the folks who have 
accumulated the most wealth in this country.
  We have about half of the world's billionaires living in the United 
States, and good for us, and good for them. Most of that money 
accumulated by billionaires is a result of appreciation in stocks, and 
has never been subjected to a tax.
  Our colleagues have created this wonderful little description of the 
estate tax or the tax on inherited wealth. They have now described it 
as a death tax. And they are on the floor of the Senate saying that 
when Donald Trump, for example, passes on and moves to another life, 
his estate should not be taxed. I would not normally use a name, but 
Donald Trump is a wonderful and very successful businessman. He likes 
to have people use his name, so I am sure he will not mind if I use his 
name.
  I think the fight to repeal the tax on inherited wealth is an 
interesting one. At the very same time, the administration says: We 
think we are desperately short of money to help pay for the basic 
Social Security benefits for the low-income elderly who have reached 
retirement age.
  Oh, we have plenty of energy to repeal the tax on inherited wealth 
for the richest Americans, but we do not have the will to make sure 
that Social Security will be there when you retire. I believe it is a 
matter of values, a matter of choice, and a matter of priorities.
  Some will say: Well, if all you are doing is supporting Social 
Security, you are just old-fashioned. There are some timeless truths in 
life. It seems to me that standing up for something that has so 
dramatically improved life in this country is a timeless truth. And 
it's one that I would like to be a part of.
  Before Social Security was enacted, one-half of the elderly in 
America were poor. They were living in poverty. Today that figure is 
less than 10 percent. This program is often the only support for those 
who reach retirement age.
  I cannot tell you how many times I have been to meetings when someone 
has come up to me, at the end of a meeting in North Dakota, very often 
in a small town--very often a woman living alone--who talks about how 
important that Social Security check is. They tell me that it 
determines whether they can buy groceries or pay the rent and have the 
opportunity to continue to live alone. It is so important and has been 
such a benefit for so many lives.
  Now, I am for change when change advances our interests and lifts our 
country. I am for private accounts if they are outside of Social 
Security. I encourage people to provide more for their retirement 
security by investing more in IRAs and 401(k)s. But I am not for anyone 
who wants to take apart the basic Social Security program.
  One of my colleagues calls this an ``evidence-free zone'' here in 
Washington, DC, that despite the evidence, people use whatever rhetoric 
they want to use. Well the evidence is pretty clear. The President says 
that if you could take a part of Social Security, invest it in private 
accounts, you will have this wonderful nirvana with dramatic returns in 
private accounts, and you will all end up with a lot of money.
  The problem is this: The President believes the Social Security 
system is in crisis because the actuaries in the Social Security 
program predict that rather than the 3.4-percent economic growth we 
have had for the past 75 years, we will only have 1.9-percent economic 
growth in the next 75 years. If you have 1.9-percent economic growth 
for 75 years, you are not going to get the kind of corporate profits 
that lift the stock market and provides returns in private accounts.
  You cannot have it both ways. Either you have an economy that is 
robust and growing, in which case you do not have a Social Security 
funding issue, or you have 1.9-percent economic growth, dramatically 
below what we have previously experienced, and you cannot possibly get 
an adequate return in private accounts. You cannot have it both ways. 
Yet the administration and others continue to argue both sides of that 
issue.
  This is a big issue and important issue. There is plenty of room for 
disagreement. I believe passionately and strongly in this issue. I 
believe the Social Security program is not, as those on the far right 
would say, the soft underbelly of the welfare state. I don't believe 
that at all.
  This is something that has allowed all Americans to contribute from 
their paychecks something called FICA. The ``I'' stands for insurance, 
because this is an insurance program. I believe this has worked well 
for over 7 decades. And it can and will work well for 10 and 20 decades 
from now if we have the will and the nerve and the strength to stand up 
for the foundation of this nation's retirement security system.
  We will have aggressive debates in the coming days and weeks. I come 
from a state that has a lot at stake in this Social Security debate. We 
have a higher percentage of people aged 85 years and older than any 
other state. I have previously mentioned my uncle who has been running 
foot races, has 43 gold medals, running in the Senior Olympics all over 
the country, who discovered when he was 72 that he could run faster 
than anybody his age. His experience illustrates the fact that people 
are living longer, and good for them.
  Part of what has enriched their lives is being able to retire knowing 
that Social Security will be there for them. It is the guarantee and 
the promise this country has kept and will continue to keep in the 
future.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). The Senator from Delaware.

                          ____________________