ROBERT
WEINER:
Hi, Tara Lynn.How are you?
WAGNER:
I’m very well, thank you.
So
now Bush’s agenda calls for a ten-year, one trillion dollar overhaul to
the Social Security plan.Is that
the right move, do you think?
WEINER:Well,
Tara Lynn, what Bush is doing is turning America’s elderly into America’s
charity for his tax cuts and for his 200 billion dollars in Iraq.There
is no need because there is no crisis in Social Security.I’ve
talked with actuaries, and the reality is that the Congressional Budget
Office has said that Social Security is solvent for fifty years, and that’s
ten more than we previously thought.Social
Security’s own trustees added three years last year.Senator
Sarbanes told me that 40% of the deficit is because of the Bush tax cuts
and that the rest comes from the Iraq war, and a small portion comes from
9/11 security.So what we have is
an administration that is turning America’s elderly into America’s charity.
WAGNER:Now
the president is saying, and he released a statement this morning, the
White House released a statement this morning saying if we don’t have these
changes, there simply not going to be enough money to pay Social Security
benefits to our children and our grandchildren.If
we don’t see or if we don’t have these changes or if we don’t have an enormous
increase in payroll taxes, what do you think then, or do you think he is
wrong in that?Do you think there
is a way to extend these benefits to the next couple of generations without
his plan and without a huge hike?
WEINER:Well,
this is disingenuous.The federal
government is what can’t get to next year without a huge 400 billion dollar
deficit.Social Security is solvent
for 50 years and counting and as people make more money because of slight
inflation.We never had a Social
Security deficit.It does not exist.This
is bipartisan.What both parties
have done is take from the Social Security trust fund to pay for the deficit
that the rest of the federal government has incurred, and that’s not fair.We
cannot balance the federal budget on the backs of the elderly.
They
have a secure, solvent system that they have counted on.I’m
going to be counting on it.I’m
57 years old.I want my Social Security
benefits.And let me show you something:
The Social Security administration sends out a letter to anyone who asks,
“What would you make when you retire?” and they are saying in the worst-case
scenario, we have 73% of the benefits guaranteed for 42 years (Show letter
from SSA).So even in the worst-case
scenario, this is not a big deal.And
in the worse case scenario it would take one-third of the Bush tax cuts
to keep it completely solvent.
WAGNER:But
now, I remember this being a huge issue in the last election -- both candidates
talking about how we were going to fix the problem of Social Security.Are
you saying that there isn’t really a problem, and this is all just “Chicken
Little” tactics?
WEINER:You’re
exactly right.The Social Security
deficit is a myth.I’m going to show
you a cartoon in the Miami Herald in
the recent piece that I wrote, “We Need Claude Pepper’s Courage Now,” where
he fought against this some 30 years ago, and it has [a cartoon of] an
elephant pulling the rug under an old lady.It
is entitled, “Social Security.”There
is no excuse for taking the money from the Social Security trust fund and
using it in paying the deficit the rest of the federal government incurs.There
is no Social Security deficit.The
system is solvent; it is sound. The proposals are a complete charade against
America’s seniors to try to solve other problems.
WAGNER:But for the people who might be thinking that they don’t agree with the Bush plan -- the overhaul that he has suggested -- it should be noted that he suggested a very similar plan four years ago that went nowhere because of strong political resistance.So is there any reason we should be worried that this time it may go through, or is it going to suffer the same fate?
WEINER:Depends.If
he would win the election and pull the congress with him and the Supreme
Court with him, you never know of the danger of what this guy could do!But
let me tell you about that plan.Now,
the former administrator of the Social Security system, Ken Apfel, has
pointed out that the Bush voluntarization plan would not save money; it
would cost two trillion dollars in ten years and eight trillion dollars
in forty years.And the reason it
would cost so much is because he also made a pledge not to cut benefits.And
if you don’t cut benefits and you take some of the money out and you voluntarized
it and put it into the very risky stock market -- by the way, which is
itself going nowhere -- seniors don’t want their money in the stock market
now -- you’re costing eight trillion dollars in the next forty years.His
plan will and should go nowhere when he’s scaring America’s seniors in
the process.
WAGNER:So
the bottom-line, do we need any change?Even
a really small change in Social Security in order to insure not today’s
seniors, not even the baby-boomer generation but people in their twenties
now to make sure that they have these benefits when they reach the age
of Social Security?
WEINER:Well,
no, we don’t.We need no changes
now.
WAGNER:No
changes?None at all?
WEINER:No
changes.And if we did down the road,
there would be an incremental change that the federal government would
be easily able to confront.We just
came up with 200 billion dollars for Iraq.If
we need sixty billion dollars for Social Security because of an emergency,
in fifty years, do you think we could worry about it then?
WAGNER:All
right, thank you very much, Mr. Weiner, for being on the show.We
appreciate you taking time to talk with us about this important issue.
WEINER:Thanks
a lot.
(Tallahassee
Democrat story October 15, 2004 follows below…)
The
U.S. Congressional Budget Office has estimated the Social Security system
is solvent for at least another 48 years. Yet the survey found 63 percent
of Americans think the system will have insufficient money to pay full
benefits within 40 years.
"The
media will write 'crisis' every time, and our political leaders will do
the same," said former U.S. Rep. Barbara Kennelly. "But we don't do a good
job of saying, 'The system is not broke.'"
Kennelly,
a former Democratic congresswoman from Connecticut, was one of a dozen
political and social service officials who attended a news conference for
the release of the survey commissioned by the Claude Pepper Foundation.
The foundation is part of the Pepper Center Institute on Aging and Public
Policy at Florida State University. The center honors the late U.S. congressman
and U.S. senator from Florida, who was a champion of senior-citizen issues.
The
survey was based on interviews with 600 registered voters across the nation.
The foundation did an additional survey of 150 registered voters in Florida,
though the responses did not vary greatly from those of the national survey.
Among
the findings:
• 59
percent of Americans say a presidential candidate's stand on Social Security
is important to them, and 20 percent said they would vote against a candidate
who disagreed with their position on Social Security.
• 54
percent said they expected to get back less money than they paid in from
Social Security when they retire.
• 41
percent support allowing individuals to invest a portion of the money they
have paid to Social Security in the stock market.
• 62
percent oppose raising the retirement age from 65 to 70 - a move Pepper
fought successfully as the chairman of the U.S. House Aging Committee in
1978.
"Claude
Pepper would roll over in his grave if he heard some of the proposals (today),"
said Robert Weiner, former staff director of the U.S. House Aging Committee
under Pepper. "No one has matched his courage in maintaining Social Security
for the nation's senior citizens."
The
survey found 71 percent of respondents think the Social Security system
needs to be revamped, but they varied on the four most popular proposals:
paying Social Security benefits from other government funds (35 percent),
increasing the minimum retirement age (23 percent), increasing payroll
taxes (19 percent) and decreasing benefits (7 percent).
"There
is no silver bullet," said pollster Sergio Bendixen. "Each potential solution
has a heavy political price tag attached to it."
One
of the major issues in the current presidential campaign -- raised by both
parties and newspapers nationwide -- is the need to ''save'' Social Security.
Everyone is talking about the impact of the coming wave of baby-boomer
retirements.
Economic
columnists such as Robert Samuelson make the case that the baby boomers
''are in a conspiracy against our children.'' Recently U.S. Rep. Nick Smith,
R-Mich., typified congressional flamethrowers when he held a ''special
order'' on the House floor to blast: ``Insolvency is certain. Social Security
is the largest federal expenditure.''
I
served as staff director of the House Aging Committee under the great Claude
Pepper, D-Miami, for five years and helped him as a friend and consultant
until he died in 1989. He would roll over in his grave from what the Republicans
and even naysayers in his own cherished Democratic Party are promulgating
about Social Security.
I
remember Pepper's outrage in 1978 at Carter Commerce Secretary Juanita
Kreps’ statement reported in the press about increasing the retirement
age to 68 for full Social Security retirement benefits. Pepper demanded
and got a meeting of Kreps with himself and House Social Security Chairman
James Burke, D-Mass. Pepper kept saying that he and Burke would ''fight
it to our death.'' Kreps asked, ''Even (delaying the start) to the year
2000?'' Both members vehemently exclaimed, ''Yes!'' Kreps finally responded,
''Well, I haven’t made the proposal anyway.'' That’s how it’s done, and
that’s the courage we need from somewhere now.
The
fund is financially strong
The
reality, as the Social Security trustees pointed out in their annual report
this year, is that Social Security is solvent for at least 39 years --
it actually increased last year. The report indicates that the system still
can meet all its obligations for the next four decades without new sources
of revenue or benefit cuts. Now, under President Bush, the overall federal
budget can’t even get to next year without a deficit -- so let’s keep the
perspective: What those who advocate benefit reductions really intend,
unless they just don’t get the reality of Social Security solvency, is
using solvent Social Security money to reduce the overall federal deficit.
The
baby boom is a short transitional factor. The ''boomers'' aren’t booming
with babies themselves. The high birthrate of 2.9 that they represent (births
from 1940-1969) is followed by their own parenting rate of 2.1 per woman
(1970-2000), according to the National Center for Health Statistics. This
is the lowest rate in history, which will thereby represent the lowest
drain on the Social Security trust fund ever.
Some
senators now point out that a system ''repair'' would amount to one-third
of the Bush tax cuts even if the trust fund needs it in some 40 years (if
the economy improves, it can moot even that need). So even if a temporary
budget fix is needed way down the road, the Social Security trust funds
will be making money later by leaps and bounds.
Another
neglected point is a critical new trend: People are choosing to work longer.
According to the Census Bureau, the number of people over 65 working or
seeking employment has grown by 50 percent since 1980. Therefore, there
will be far fewer people drawing Social Security and less drag on the system.
As
pundits, politicians and editorial writers ride the steamroller crushing
Social Security benefits -- either by raising the retirement age or by
reducing benefits -- many citizens grow anxious at the thought that the
money they pay to Social Security will never be paid back to them. If these
policy gurus and politicians have their way in changing the system, our
fears may turn into reality.
Don't
touch that money
Ironically,
Smith and those like him neglect to mention that the federal budget’s insolvency
is what is now certain for several years to come. Yet miraculously, Congress
is able to fix the federal budget every year there is a deficit -- for
instance this year’s $400 billion shortfall -- by declaring that we’ll
just eat the deficit.
Cutting
benefits is unfair and unnecessary. Raiding the solvent Social Security
system is an excuse to fund the insolvent federal budget. To preserve Social
Security, the money contributed by taxpayers must remain untouched by federal
deficit-makers; the idea of a ''lock box'' is not absurd as some paint
it.
Quit
scaring our seniors with false claims. Social Security is just fine; what
is scary are the words of our political leaders.
Robert
Weiner, a public-affairs consultant, was staff director of the House Aging
Committee, chaired by the late U.S. Rep. Claude Pepper.