Social Security

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, as ranking member of the Budget Committee, this afternoon I would like to discuss an issue of very serious concern to tens of millions of Americans; that is, the Republican effort to cut Social Security disability insurance benefits and perhaps benefits for Social Security retirees. In my view and in the view of seniors throughout the State of Vermont, this is a very bad idea.

As you know, on the very first day of the new Congress, House Republicans passed a rule--later adopted by the full House--which would prevent the common practice of rebalancing funds from the Social Security retirement program to the Social Security disability program. This rule adopted by the Republicans in the House would lay the groundwork for a 19-percent cut in disability benefits next year.

President Obama, in his budget, did exactly what has been done on 11 separate occasions in the past, always--and here is the point I want to make time and time again and why this is a manufactured crisis--this has been done 11 times in the past, always in a noncontroversial way, and that is to rebalance the funds between the two programs. This is not a big deal. The Republicans are manufacturing a crisis where none exists. Time and time again, Democratic Presidents and Republican Presidents, with absolutely no controversy, have done what President Obama has proposed. This was done in 1968 under President Johnson; in 1970 under President Nixon; in 1978, 1979, and 1980 under President Carter; in 1982, 1983, 1984, and 1987 under President Ronald Reagan; in 1994, 1996, 1997, 2000, and beyond under President Bill Clinton. In other words, this is a totally noncontroversial process that has been done time and time again under Republican Presidents and Democratic Presidents.

What the President is suggesting today is that we reallocate funds from the senior retirement fund to the disability fund. But interestingly enough, of the 11 times the funds were reallocated, it turns out that on five occasions it was money going from the disability fund to temporarily help out the retirement fund.

There are some people who sadly are trying to divide the senior population from the disability population. What they are saying in a way that is untruthful and unfair is that by reallocating money into the disability fund, we are taking funding away from seniors and the retirement fund. This is absolutely untrue because, as I have indicated, on 11 occasions we have seen this reallocation, and sometimes, in fact, it comes from the disability fund to help the retirement fund.

I am very happy to tell you that virtually every senior organization in America--organizations representing tens of millions of senior citizens--has made it clear that we must reallocate funds, we must prevent a cut in disability benefits, and we must do what has been done time and time again.

Let me briefly read a letter from the AARP. The AARP is the largest senior organization in America.

This letter was written on July 22, 2014. It went to chairman Ron Wyden and ranking member Orrin Hatch of the Finance Committee. What the letter says:

As the largest nonprofit, nonpartisan organization representing the interests of Americans age 50 and older and their families, we write in advance of the Committee's legislative hearing on the Social Security Disability Insurance program (SSDI) to express our support for Social Security, including its disability insurance functions, and our support of rebalancing payroll taxes to ensure the earned benefits of 11 million disabled Americans and their families are not reduced or put at risk.

Once again, AARP: We ``support the rebalancing of payroll taxes to ensure the earned benefits of 11 million disabled Americans and their families are not reduced or put at risk.''

I ask unanimous consent that letter be printed in the Record.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, it is not just the AARP that holds that view. It is dozens and dozens of senior organizations all across the country. Let me read very briefly from a letter written by the Leadership Council of Aging Organizations, dated October 9, 2014. It is a letter that goes to the President--to President Obama. What it says is:

We urge you to include a non-controversial, commonsense legislative adjustment in your 2016 budget for Congress to temporarily reallocate the Social Security payroll contributions to address the anticipated shortfall in the Social Security Disability Insurance (DI) program. We also strongly urge you to reject proposals to cut Social Security benefits, coverage, or eligibility.

That is the Leadership Council of Aging Organizations.

I ask unanimous consent that letter also be printed in the Record.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, let me be very clear and say that this fight--what some of us see on our TV screens and what we hear from some politicians--the simple truth is that Social Security is not going broke. Social Security is not going broke. Today, Social Security has a $2.8 trillion surplus in its trust fund and can pay out all benefits to all beneficiaries, the elderly and the disabled, for the next 18 years.

This is not the opinion of Senator Bernie Sanders. This is the opinion of the Social Security Administration in their latest report. There is and can be no debate about these simple facts. If we rebalance funds, as President Obama and many others have proposed, all benefits--retiree benefits for our older Americans and disabled benefits for disabled Americans--would be paid out for the next 18 years--the next 18 years.

So people who come before you and say Social Security is going broke, they are simply not telling the truth. While this 18-year period makes it clear that we do not have an imminent crisis with regard to Social Security, I do agree with those who want to make sure Social Security is solvent for a lot longer than 18 years, for our kids and for our grandchildren.

Frankly, when we talk about the long-term solvency of Social Security, and that of course includes disability insurance as well, there are two basic approaches we can take for those who want to extend Social Security for many decades. One approach is what many of my Republican colleagues are talking about. What they are saying, in essence, is that in order to save Social Security we have to cut Social Security. Some are talking about a so-called chained CPI, which would mean a cut in cost-of-living adjustments, some are talking about raising the retirement age, at which point seniors will be able to get benefits, and some in fact are talking about privatizing Social Security and giving that program over to Wall Street. That is one approach. That is one way we could deal with Social Security and the future of the program. Needless to say that is an approach I very strongly disagree with.

The other approach, an approach which is widely supported in poll after poll by the American people, extends Social Security and protects Social Security in a very different way than many Republicans are proposing; that is, it addresses the issue that right now, as most Americans know, there is a cap on the income that is subject to the Social Security payroll tax.

That cap is now at $118,500; in other words, one individual makes $11.8 million a year but only pays 6.2 percent on the first $118,500 he earns. The second individual makes $118,500 and pays Social Security taxes on all of that income. That, I think most Americans believe, is patently unfair.

I have introduced legislation in the past, and I am now working with other Senators who have introduced similar types of legislation which eliminates the cap on income subject to the Social Security payroll tax. My own view is we should apply the Social Security payroll tax to income above $250,000.

If we do that, if we go down that very simple and fair route of asking very wealthy individuals--the top 1 percent, the top 1 1/2 percent--to contribute more into the Social Security trust fund, the fact is we could extend Social Security for decades, disability benefits for decades, and in fact we would have enough money to expand benefits, not cut them.

On March 19, 2013, in response to a letter I wrote to the Social Security Chief Actuary, he wrote back and he told us that taking the approach my legislation lays out, raising the cap on taxable income starting at $250,000, would extend the life of Social Security past the year 2060.

So for anybody to come on this floor and say in order to save Social Security we have to cut benefits, at a time when millions of senior citizens in this country are struggling to pay for the medicine they need, to keep warm in the winter, to buy the food they need, people out there living on $13,000, $14,000 a year--and there are some who say we have to cut Social Security--let me go on record and say I strongly disagree.

The far better and far fairer approach is to lift the cap on taxable income and start at $250,000. So if we are serious about extending the life of Social Security, if we are serious about not cutting disability benefits, there is a path forward. Yes, it does ask the people on top to contribute a little bit more. I know that with all of the lobbyists and all the campaign contributions coming in here that sometimes becomes tough, but it is the right thing to do.

Let's stand with the millions of seniors who are struggling to stay alive economically in these tough times, rather than wealthy campaign contributors.

I ask unanimous consent that the March 19, 2013, letter from the Chief Actuary of the Social Security Administration be printed in the Record.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source