Q:
Will you support or oppose using Social Security taxes to fund private accounts?
A: Social Security has been the foundation of our country's promise that no American will have to face an impoverished retirement. The Republican leadership in
Washington is committed to undermining this promise through a risky scheme to put Social Security funds in the stock market as part of new private accounts. We should never again put seniors' livelihoods at risk from a catastrophic stock market crash.
I am opposed to President Bush's proposal to cut Social Security benefits to middle-income workers through progressive indexing, and am disappointed that Senator Chafee has expressed support for this plan.
In the last year alone, Rhode Island seniors had to fear that their Social Security benefits were going to be cut by the pro-privatization crowd in Washington. They've been promised lower prescription costs, only to be handed a complicated
federal program that will only help a select few who can figure it out. My plan is to make sure that worker's pensions are treated no differently than the CEO's pension who govern them.
Source: Campaign website, www.WhitehouseForSenate.com, "Key issues"
May 2, 2006
Lift limit on withholding from $90,000 to $120,000
We can protect Social Security. We just need the courage to tell the voters we're going to lift the limit on Social Security withholding from $90,000 to $120,000.
That makes a lot more sense than cutting benefits and we can keep Social Security solvent for decades to come.
Source: Campaign website, www.WhitehouseForSenate.com, "Key issues"
May 2, 2006
Voted NO on establishing reserve funds & pre-funding for Social Security.
Voting YES would:
require that the Federal Old Age and Survivors Trust Fund be used only to finance retirement income of future beneficiaries;
ensure that there is no change to benefits for individuals born before January 1, 1951
provide participants with the benefits of savings and investment while permitting the pre-funding of at least some portion of future benefits; and
ensure that the funds made available to finance such legislation do not exceed the amounts estimated to be actuarially available.
Proponents recommend voting YES because:
Perhaps the worst example of wasteful spending is when we take the taxes people pay for Social Security and, instead of saving them, we spend them on other things. Even worse than spending Social Security on other things is we do not count it as debt when we talk about the deficit every year. So using the Social Security money is actually a way to hide even more wasteful spending without counting it as debt.
This Amendment would change that.
Opponents recommend voting NO because:
This amendment has a fatal flaw. It leaves the door open for private Social Security accounts by providing participants with the option of "pre-funding of at least some portion of future benefits."
This body has already closed the door on the President's ill-conceived plan for private Social Security accounts. The opposition to privatization is well-known:
Privatizing Social Security does nothing to extend the solvency of the program.
Transition costs would put our Nation in greater debt by as much as $4.9 trillion.
Creating private accounts would mean benefit cuts for retirees, by as much as 40%.
Half of all American workers today have no pension plan from their employers. It is critical that we protect this safety net.
Make no mistake about it, this is a stalking-horse for Social Security. It looks good on the surface, but this is an amendment to privatize Social Security.
