[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 9724-9726]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            SOCIAL SECURITY

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I rise to turn my attention to a report 
that was released yesterday, the annual report of the Board of Trustees 
of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and the Disability 
Insurance Trust Funds. Those are fancy names for what we call Social 
Security.
  With yesterday's release, they once again changed their projection as 
to what the future might hold with respect to Social Security, thus 
underlying a point I have tried to make in

[[Page 9725]]

my career in the Senate ever since I arrived; that is, all projections 
about the future are wrong. I don't know whether they are wrong on the 
high side or on the low side, but they are always wrong. The closer we 
get to reality, the more we have to adjust those projections and say: 
Well, it is closer to this, that, and the other.
  The most reliable projections are those which are 30 days out. The 
next most reliable are those which are 3 months out and then those 
which are 6 months, those which are a year. Those which are 20 years or 
30 years out are all very much subject to challenge. We are seeing that 
here. We have had projections on which we have based our speeches and 
our actions. Now we are seeing those projections get changed. But there 
is one projection that is not subject to change that has bearing on the 
issue of Social Security. I would like to put up a chart which 
demonstrates that.
  The reason this one is not subject to change is that all of the 
people represented here are already born. These are people who are 
already alive. These are not projections about demographics. These are 
not projections about economics. These are the facts with respect to 
the American population. This is a chart showing the percentage of 
Americans who are over 65. Back in 1950, it was around 5 percent of 
Americans who were over 65. Then it increased gradually over the years. 
Now it is closer to 10 percent. There was a dip in the percentage that 
occurred between 1990 and now. That dip represented the birthrate back 
in the Great Depression when people, for their own reasons, curtailed 
the having of children. One could say it was primarily economic. 
Children have ceased to be economic assets; they have become consumer 
goods. When times are hard, you cut back on your consumer goods.
  Then we had what we demographers call the baby boom. The GIs came 
home from World War II. They started families. They started their 
careers. They were filled with optimism, and they were willing to take 
on some extra consumer goods. They had larger families. Those children 
are now reaching retirement age.
  Starting in 2008, something is going to happen in America that has 
never happened before in our history: The percentage of Americans over 
retirement age is going to double in a 20-year period. Then it will 
taper off again, after we have absorbed the impact of the baby boom 
generation, and continue to increase but at a relatively minor rate. It 
is this phenomenon, this projection, which is a reliable one--because 
all of these people have been born--that is driving the crisis in 
Social Security. It is not the Republicans who are driving the crisis. 
It is not the Democrats who are responsible for the crisis. We should 
stop talking in partisan terms about this and recognize the reality. 
This is a demographic reality. This is a demographic projection upon 
which we can rely.
  Social Security is a program that covers everybody who works. It 
covers the single mom who works as a waitress at the minimum wage, and 
it covers Oprah Winfrey and Warren Buffett and Bill Gates. The 
multibillionaires receive Social Security. They receive Social Security 
on the basis of the amount they pay into the program. The amount they 
pay into the program is substantially more than the amount the single-
mom waitress pays in. Because it is structured in that fashion, Oprah 
Winfrey will receive more than the single-mom waitress--indeed, 
significantly more. The question arises, under those circumstances, in 
order to deal with the shortfall that is described in the report issued 
by the trustees, do we need to continue that idea; that is, that Oprah 
Winfrey, with her billions, still should get more Social Security than 
the single-mom waitress who, when she retires, has no personal safety 
net whatsoever. I am not suggesting that what we do is penalize Oprah 
Winfrey or Warren Buffett or Bill Gates. I don't want to pick on Oprah 
too much, but she is perhaps the most visible all of these billionaires 
about whom I speak.
  There is something in the Social Security system that we should 
address and that people on both sides of the aisle should address; that 
is, the way Social Security benefits are currently figured has in that 
mathematical formula a method of increasing the benefits to compensate 
for inflation. The formula that is there increases the benefits more 
than inflation goes up. We don't know that. Americans aren't aware of 
that. We say: Here is the benefit line, and it should increase by so 
much with respect to inflation, and that is only fair. It increases 
more than inflation actually goes up.
  The late Senator Moynihan from New York used to say the way to deal 
with this reality of the doubling of Americans over retirement age is 
to simply adjust the inflation adjustment to true inflation.
  We are paying out more than inflation would justify. If we just back 
it down to pay out exactly what inflation would justify, then we solve 
the problem. Then the report from the trustees says there will be 
enough money. It is the fact we have adjusted it higher than inflation 
that is causing the money to disappear, causing the projections to be 
as bad as they are.
  Let me show you what happens if we do not make some kind of 
adjustment. Here is another chart that takes the information that comes 
from the trustees and puts it in perspective. This flat line is the 
income coming into the Social Security system. This blue line is the 
payout. As you will see, starting at about 2014, the amount paid out 
will be more than the amount coming in.
  How do we make up the difference? Well, it is in the trust fund. It 
is a commitment made by the Congress. So the Congress will put up the 
money. We will honor the commitment of the trust fund.
  Then, around about 2040, 2041, all of a sudden the trust fund is 
exhausted, and, by law, you cannot pay out more than you have coming 
in--unless you dip into the trust fund. So if there is no trust fund, 
and you cannot pay out any more than you have coming in, the amount of 
benefits drops dramatically back to the level of the income. That is 
where we are, and that is roughly a 25-percent cut across the board to 
everybody.
  That is a 25-percent cut to the woman who waited on tables as a 
single mom and is now at retirement age and sees her benefits cut 25 
percent. It is a 25-percent cut for Oprah Winfrey, who will not notice 
it. Indeed, she probably won't even be aware the Social Security check 
is coming in because in her billions that check gets lost.
  This dotted line shown on the chart is what the benefits should have 
been if we had enough money. But we will not have enough money, and 
that is where we will be.
  Instead of waiting until 2041 to deal with this reality, what we 
should do now is listen to what Senator Moynihan had to say--but with 
this amendment, he said: Change the adjustment for inflation to match 
real inflation, and you get enough money to keep the two together.
  I say: Leave the present overly generous adjustment for inflation in 
place for the single mom; that is, leave the present situation in place 
for the bottom third of people who pay into the trust fund. Then say to 
Oprah Winfrey and Bill Gates: You are going to have to struggle by with 
just inflation as it really is. We are not going to give you the 
inflation-plus energizer that we give to the bottom third.
  Now, for those of us who fall somewhere in between the bottom third 
and Bill Gates, we can have a blend. We can have a mixture of the more 
generous benefits paid to the bottom third and the less generous 
benefits paid to the top 1 percent. By simply making that kind of 
adjustment now--now, not waiting until 2041--we can avoid the crisis in 
2041.
  Now, I have had conversations with my friends across the aisle about 
this proposal for several years. I have introduced it as a piece of 
legislation and discussed it with people around this Congress of both 
parties. This is the reaction I get: Bob, this is a good idea. This is 
something we probably ought to do. But we won't address the problem 
until after the next election.

[[Page 9726]]

  Mr. President, the next election never comes. There never is an 
``after the next election.'' We are constantly demagoging the Social 
Security issue for political advantage and putting off the time when we 
must deal with it.
  So triggered by the occasion of the report released by the trustees 
of the Social Security trust funds, I say today, the time has come for 
both parties to recognize this is a problem that will not go away. This 
is a projection we can trust, and it is time for us to put partisan 
advantage or perceived partisan advantage aside and deal with it.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Colorado.

                          ____________________