[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 160 (Wednesday, December 12, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7784-S7786]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            THE FISCAL CLIFF

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to give some 
perspective on the debate going on in Washington about the so-called 
fiscal cliff. The so-called fiscal cliff is a misnomer, but what it 
reflects is the concern that unless we act our economy is going to be 
hit by significant austerity in 2013. Not at 12:01 on January 1, but 
over the course of the year. So it is not a cliff, it is more like if 
we do not do something we are going to start on a slope. But we are not 
falling off any cliff at 12:01 on January 1.
  Fortunately there is an easy way to address one of the major parts of 
this puzzle. The Senate earlier this year passed a tax relief bill for 
the middle class. It would extend for 1 full year all of the Bush-era 
tax cuts on middle-class families. That is sitting in front of the 
House of Representatives. President Obama has said, If they pick it up 
and pass it tomorrow I will put my pen to it immediately. That is one 
thing that could be done right now. But the House Republicans will not 
take it up. I say if they were to take it up today, pass it, the 
President signs it, I think you are going to see a lot of middle-class 
families maybe even do a little bit more Christmas shopping because 
they know their taxes are not going up next year and that will help 
spur our economy.
  Again, I point out some of my friends on the other side of the aisle, 
here and in the House, have been talking about doing that very thing. 
So there are some Republicans who recognize that this would be one of 
the best things we can do, and that is pass the middle-class tax cut 
that we passed here in July.
  Nonetheless, I keep hearing what we really need to do to address the 
so-called fiscal cliff is to enact significant entitlement reform. What 
does that mean, entitlement reform? Let's be upfront with the American 
people. When you hear our friends the Republicans

[[Page S7785]]

and others talk about entitlement reform, they are talking about three 
things: cutting Social Security, cutting Medicare, and cutting 
Medicaid. That is it. That is what they are talking about.
  For example, let's take a look at Social Security. It has become an 
article of faith, almost, among a lot of people around this city that 
one of the ways to reduce the national debt is to ``reform Social 
Security.''
  That is really fishy because Social Security can pay full benefits, 
100 percent, until 2033, and by law it is not allowed to add to the 
deficit or debt. So, therefore, it is not driving our long-term debt.
  What is really going on here? I think one of the ways to figure it 
out is a close look at the proposals under consideration. If you look 
closely you will find almost all of these serious proposals to save 
Social Security purport to do so by cutting it.
  For instance, one proposal is to raise the retirement age so that 
hard-working Americans, including nurses, cashiers, carpenters, 
mechanics, truckdrivers, have to work even longer before they can 
retire with full benefits.
  I remind people we already raised the retirement age. We did that in 
the 1980s, from 65 to 67. That is being phased in right now. The 
Bowles-Simpson Commission, what did they want to do? They wanted to 
raise it to 69. I remind people that life expectancy at age 65--that is 
the amount of time you are going to live after you reach 65--has not 
grown equally among all Americans. Not surprisingly, higher income 
Americans have seen much larger gains in life expectancy after 65 than 
low- and moderate-income families. So you raise the retirement age for 
Social Security, you help those who have money and you hurt those who 
do not. That is exactly what it is. You hurt low- and moderate-income 
Americans who work at some of the most physically demanding jobs in our 
economy. It hits them the hardest. So we can dismiss that.
  I was looking at the list of people proposing that we raise the 
retirement age--Bowles-Simpson; the Third Way; Lloyd Blankfein--CEO of 
Goldman Sachs, how about that--Senator Coburn, the American Enterprise 
Institute, Cato Institute, Republican Study Committee. Oh, yes, the 
Ryan budget, by the way. We know what the voters of America thought 
about that Ryan budget.
  Anyway, there is a whole list of people there who are saying we have 
to raise the retirement age. Let's see what kinds of jobs they have, 
what kind of work they do during their lifetime.
  Another proposal we have heard about to kind of ``fix'' Social 
Security is to base future cost-of-living adjustments, the COLAs, on 
the so-called chained CPI. That is a phrase you are hearing more and 
more of. What it does is basically it reduces annual cost-of-living 
adjustments. It is nothing more than a benefit cut by using a 
measurement of inflation that reflects the costs faced by seniors even 
more poorly than the current measurement. In terms of take-home 
benefits for an individual beneficiary, the chained CPI will result in 
a benefit cut of $136 per year for a 65-year-old. However, because of 
the compounding, the benefit cut would increase to an average of $560 
per year less for a 75-year-old retiree. That is a severe benefit cut, 
particularly for the oldest Americans who are the most likely to have 
gone through all their own retirement savings and must rely totally on 
Social Security. Furthermore, the chained CPI is simply not a more 
accurate way to measure inflation. Rather, it more accurately measures 
the degree to which people are reducing their costs and as a result it 
can mask big changes in the quality of life for Americans.

  I have talked to people in town meetings about chained CPI. If an 
elderly person is on Social Security and due to heating costs or 
perhaps some medical bills that person's budget is pretty tight, 
instead of buying beef for dinner, he decides to buy chicken. This 
decreases his costs a little bit. Chained CPI would look at that and 
say that since his costs have gone down, we should reduce his COLA. Now 
that his COLA is reduced, he is sort of locked in there. Now his budget 
is a little tighter so he decides to go to beans. In this scenario, he 
has gone from beef to chicken and is now eating beans. The chained CPI 
said his costs went down further so we will reduce his COLA even more. 
Pretty soon he is reduced to drinking warm water for soup and the COLA 
keeps going down even more. That is what the chained CPI does to an 
elderly person.
  Don't be fooled by a fancy CPI. Chained CPI is akin to being on a 
boat and you have to swim to shore and someone puts a big log chain 
around your ankle and tells you to swim. It is going to drag you to the 
bottom. Chained CPI chains you and drags you down.
  There are long-term challenges confronting the Social Security 
system, and we know that. The baby boomers are retiring and we have 
fewer workers contributing to the system. Fortunately, we knew this has 
been coming for decades, and that is why we have the trust fund in the 
first place. The trust fund pays 100 percent of the benefits until 
2033. What happens in 2033? A lot of people say Social Security is 
going to go belly-up. No, it doesn't. Unless changes are made, the 
Social Security trust fund will pay out 75 percent of anticipated 
benefits in 2033. What happens if we reduce unemployment? What if we 
reduce unemployment from its present 7.7 percent down to 4 percent? 
Guess what. That 2033 now goes up because there are more working people 
paying into the system.
  So one of the best ways to fix Social Security is to get jobs back 
for people in this country. That is why those of us who are committed 
to honestly strengthening Social Security will resist any effort to cut 
Social Security and are saying, no, don't make it any part of a grand 
bargain. It should have no part of it whatsoever. There are approaches 
that can strengthen Social Security. To do so, I introduced legislation 
earlier this year that would provide seniors with greater economic 
security.
  My proposal does it three ways. First, we actually raise the amount 
of Social Security that people get by $65 a month. Some might ask how 
can that save money. I thought we were supposed to cut benefits not 
increase them. I say there is a way. We can increase it by $65 a month. 
Others might say that to an upper income person, $65 is not much. To 
some who have paid in the minimum amount to Social Security, they have 
had minimum-wage-type jobs most of their lives, so $65 a month over 1 
year can be quite a bit.
  Secondly, my proposal ensures that COLAs better reflect the cost of 
living for seniors than what we presently do right now, and we 
certainly don't do chain CPI.
  Finally, how do we do this? By applying the payroll tax to every 
dollar of eligible earnings by removing the so-called wage cap. We 
don't do it over 1 year; we phase it in over 10 years. For the life of 
me, I have never been able to understand why it is equitable for 
someone who is making $50,000 a year to pay their payroll taxes on 
every $1 they earn, but for someone who is making $500,000 a year, they 
only pay payroll taxes on the first 20 cents of every $1 they earn. The 
rest of the 80 cents they pay no payroll taxes on.
  We talked about this for a long time and we have never done it. It is 
time to remove the wage cap which will allow us to pay $65 more per 
month per person. According to the actuaries of Social Security, the 
100-percent benefit that would expire in 2033 goes to 75 percent and 
would be extended beyond 2050. Just by doing that, we will extend the 
life past 2050, pay $65 more a month per person, and make it fair for 
everyone by ensuring that everyone pays into the trust fund on every $1 
they earn. These are the kind of changes we should consider as part of 
any effort to reform Social Security. Regrettably, I don't hear from 
those who want to put Social Security on the table as part of a debt 
reduction package calling for these type of reforms. They want to just 
cut benefits, that is all.
  As we work to resolve the fiscal cliff on our long-term deficits, our 
core principle should be that we need a resolution that is good for the 
middle class, and that starts with strengthening and protecting 
programs such as Social Security. It also means we should take this 
opportunity to continue to support hard-working families and create 
jobs, particularly through programs such as infrastructure investment. 
We should also continue to provide help, such as

[[Page S7786]]

the middle-class tax cut, to working Americans by giving them more 
money to put in their pocket to spend and drive the economy forward.
  However, we must not continue the payroll tax cut of the last 2 years 
because of the threat it poses to the integrity of Social Security. Two 
years ago, to help middle-class families through tough times, we 
reduced the amount they paid into Social Security by 2 percent, from 
6.2 percent to 4.2 percent. In order to make up for that, we put money 
from the general fund into the Social Security trust fund. It is the 
first time we have ever done that. I said it was wrong, and I still say 
it is wrong. We then extended it for 1 year until the end of this year. 
I thought that would be the end of it. Now I am hearing voices say we 
ought to extend this payroll tax cut.
  Two of the critical strengths of Social Security are that it is 
universal and it is self-funded. No dollar paid in benefits comes from 
any source other than the payroll tax. As such, Social Security does 
not add one dime to our deficit. Again, that fact alone is a strong 
argument for those of us defending Social Security from misguided 
attempts to cut the system in the name of deficit reduction.

  I have often argued that Social Security doesn't add one dime to the 
deficit. It never has. However, if we are taking money out of the 
general fund, which we know is borrowed money, and we are putting that 
into the trust fund, then the trust fund is now taking money that is 
borrowed. No longer can we say every dime paid out of that is from the 
payroll tax since it is coming from the general fund. I think we made a 
mistake 1 year ago by extending it. Now it is the time to end it. It 
must not be extended. I, for one, will do whatever I can as a Senator 
to stop the extension of the payroll tax cut in order to help solve the 
deficit and in order to help middle-class families.
  How can we help middle-class families? It is very easy. First of all, 
pass the tax cut extension that we have sitting before the House. 
Secondly, rather than cutting payroll taxes by 2 percent, we should put 
in place a modified version of the Making Work Pay tax credit that we 
did under the American Recovery Reinvestment Act. That credit provided 
working Americans with $400 per person, $800 per couple in 2009 and in 
2010. We can adjust that credit and double it to $1,600 per couple to 
replace the payroll tax cut. So as we put the 2 percent back to where 
everyone pays back in at 6.2 percent, what we do on the other side is 
provide for a Making Work Pay tax credit that goes to people who are 
working. Obviously, no one gets the 2-percent payroll tax cut if they 
are not working. The Making Work Pay tax credit would also go to those 
who are working and make it a similar amount of money as they had on 
the Social Security payroll tax fund. This would have a greater bang 
for the buck because it would better target working Americans of modest 
means who tend to spend more of what they get back.
  I will clarify what I mean by that. Under the Social Security payroll 
tax cut--the 2-percent cut--the maximum amount of money someone would 
get would be at the highest level they paid into Social Security, which 
is approximately $110,000 on a payroll of $110,000. So that person 
would get $2,200 back. That is for someone making at least $110,000 a 
year. If someone is making $20,000 a year, they would only get $400 
back. So the higher your income, the more they get back; the lower the 
income, the less they get back. It is just topsy-turvy. It should be 
the other way around. There should be more benefits to lower income and 
less benefits to higher income.
  With this tax credit, that is what we do. More would go to people who 
are making $40,000, $50,000 $60,000, $70,000, $80,000 a year than to 
those higher income people. That is why the Making Work Pay tax credit 
is much better than extending the Social Security payroll tax.
  We are at a turning point in our economy. We can either move forward 
with an agenda that will strengthen the middle class or be dragged 
backward by misguided policies that consign us to additional decades of 
unequal growth and stagnant wages for working families.
  I stand ready to work with my Senate colleagues to reduce the deficit 
and debt but not at the expense of hard-working, middle-class families 
who make this country the great country it is.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. Corker. Mr. President, I ask to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Corker pertaining to the introduction of S. 3673 
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. CORKER. So I thank the chair. I yield the floor, and I note the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Oregon will suspend.
  The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask my friend to yield for a unanimous 
consent request and then he can have the floor as soon as I am 
finished.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Absolutely.

                          ____________________