Shared Sacrifice in Resolving the Budget Deficit

Floor Speech

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, let me begin by referring to the front page of today's Washington Post. The headline is "Obama: Social Security on table. Cuts offered in debt talks.''

Mr. President, I hope very much that headline is wrong because, in fact, Social Security, which is perhaps the most successful Federal program in the history of our country, has not contributed one penny to our deficit or our national debt. The idea of lumping Social Security and cuts in Social Security into a discussion about our deficit and our national debt is absolutely wrong and unfair to the tens of millions of seniors and people with disabilities who benefit from that program.

As you know and as the American people know, Social Security is independently funded through the payroll tax. Every worker and every employer contributes into that fund. Social Security, today, has a $2.6 trillion surplus that is projected, in fact, to grow to over $4 trillion by 2023.

We, of course, need a vigorous debate about how we deal with the deficit crisis and our national debt, but Social Security, independently funded, with a $2.6 trillion surplus, having not contributed one nickel to the national debt, should not be part of that debate.

I understand there are many people in the Senate--many of my Republican
colleagues--who do not like Social Security, who do not believe in Social Security because, essentially, they do not believe the government should be involved in retirement insurance for seniors or people with disabilities. I respect their point of view. I very strongly disagree with it.

The real problem they have is that Social Security is enormously popular. Poll after poll shows that the American people do not want to see Social Security cut, they do not want to see the retirement age raised, and they most certainly do not want to see Social Security privatized because, in fact, Social Security has succeeded. It has accomplished the goals of those people who founded that program in the 1930s. In the 1930s, about half of America's senior citizens lived in poverty. Today, that number, while it is too high, is down to 10 percent. More important, given the incredible instability in the economy we have seen for decades--especially in the last few years--where millions of people have lost some or all of the retirement savings they had invested in Wall Street, over the last 75 years, not one American has lost one dime he or she was entitled to in terms of Social Security benefits.

That is a pretty good record--every American, getting every penny that was owed to him or her for 75 years. It is a program that has worked. It is a program that is working today. It is a program that can pay out every benefit owed to every eligible American for the next 25 years. It is a program that should not be cut.

But more to the point, in terms of President Obama, one of the problems we have as a nation is that it is no great secret that many of our people are losing faith in government, for a whole lot of reasons. But certainly one of the reasons is that politicians say one thing and they do something else. They campaign on a certain promise, they give a speech, everybody applauds, and 2 years later: Well, I guess I have to change my mind; I can't quite do this.

Let's be clear: When President Obama ran for the Presidency in 2008, he was a strong advocate of Social Security. He made it very clear to the American people he was not going to cut benefits. Let me quote from a speech the President gave--he was then-Senator Barack Obama--on September 6, 2008. This is what he said:

John McCain's campaign has suggested that the best answer for the growing pressures on Social Security might be to cut cost-of-living adjustments or raise the retirement age. Let me be clear: I will not do either.

"I will not do either.'' Today's Washington Post: Obama: Social Security on table. Cuts offered in debt talks.

Mr. President, on April 16, 2008, candidate Obama said:

The alternatives, like raising the retirement age, or cutting benefits, or raising the payroll tax on everybody, including people making less than $97,000 a year----

And that is now up to $106,000 a year----

those are not good policy options.

On November 11, 2007, candidate Obama said:

I believe that cutting [Social Security] benefits is not the right answer; and that raising the retirement age is not the best option.

The American people expect the President of the United States to keep his word.

Now, again, I am not privileged to the discussions that may be going on right this moment in the White House about some grand national debt negotiations. All I can tell you--and it may be accurate, it may not; the media has been wrong once or twice in history--is that according to today's Washington Post, the President is considering lowering cost-of-living adjustments for Social Security recipients, even though, by the way, Social Security recipients have not received a COLA in the last 2 years.

So let's be clear: Today, despite significant inflation on health care costs and prescription drugs, the fact that seniors have not received a COLA in 2 years, the fact veterans have not received a COLA in 2 years, apparently, the President, in negotiating with Republicans, is considering lowering COLAs in the future.

It is important to understand what that means. According to the Strengthen Social Security Campaign, which is a coalition of senior groups who are working hard to protect Social Security, changing the way Social Security cost-of-living adjustments are calculated--as the President may be considering--and again, I do not want to make a definitive statement. All I am doing is telling you what is on the Washington Post's front page today. Is it true? I can't say. But if it is true, this would cost senior citizens hundreds of dollars a year in lower benefits.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the adoption of the so-called "Chained CPI''--and this is a different formulation. I happen to believe, and I have introduced legislation to this effect, the current COLAs for seniors are not accurate and are too low because they do not, in a realistic way, measure what seniors are purchasing, which, to a significant degree has to do with health care and prescription drugs. When you are old, you are not primarily buying laptop computers or big television sets. You are often spending a lot of your money on health care, prescription drugs, and those costs are going up. So I think today's COLA is too low and it does not reflect the real purchasing needs of seniors.

According to the CBO, if in fact the government adopted the so-called "Chained-CPI''--which is a different formulation that is even lower than the current inadequate formulation--annual COLAs under this proposal would cut benefits by $112 billion over 10 years.

Here is the important point for individuals. The Social Security Administration Chief Actuary estimates the effects of this change would be that beneficiaries who retire at the age of 65 and receive average benefits would get $560 less a year at age 75 than they would under current law and get $1,000 less a year at age 85.

People are living longer. Many of our people, God bless them, reach 75, even reach 85. To say to somebody when they reach 85, and they don't have a whole lot of money, that as a result of these cuts they will get $1,000 a year less is totally, to my mind, unacceptable and not something that should be supported by the President or by any Member of the Senate.

The American people, despite what many of my Republican friends are saying, are pretty clear on some basic issues regarding how we address the serious problem of our national debt and our deficit. What the American people say in poll after poll after poll--and they say it to me on the streets in Burlington, VT, or any other place in Vermont that I go--is that we must have shared sacrifice; that at a time when poverty is increasing in this country, when we have the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world, when millions of workers are working longer hours for lower wages, when unemployment is sky high, when seniors have not received a COLA in 2 years, when young people are finding it hard to get any jobs at all, it is immoral and bad economics to do deficit reduction on the backs of those people--of working families, of children, of the elderly, of the sick, of the poor.

Overwhelmingly, the American people say that is wrong, especially at a time when the wealthiest people have never had it so good and when corporate profits are soaring.

Mr. President, you may have seen an article on the front page of the New York Times a few days ago. Last year CEOs of major corporations have seen a 23-percent increase in their compensation packages--23 percent. We are in the midst of a horrendous recession, where real wages for American workers are going down, but CEOs are doing great, Wall Street is doing great, corporate profits are soaring, and we have dozens of corporations that make huge profits and don't pay a nickel in taxes.

We have a military budget that is three times higher than it was in 1997. So the vast majority of the people say--and they say it in polls all over the place--we need to go forward with shared sacrifice. Not as the Republicans suggest--cutting programs for the most vulnerable people in this country, throwing millions of kids off Medicaid, ending Medicare as we know it now, and making it impossible for working class families to send their kids to college. That is not what the American people are saying.

A recent survey by Public Policy Polling in swing States asked the questions. When voters in Ohio--this is just the other day this came out--were asked this spring if they would support or oppose cutting spending of Social Security to reduce the national debt, only 16 percent favored that approach compared to 80 percent who were opposed, with similar, identical results, or very close results in States such as Missouri, Montana, and Minnesota. That was just out in the papers yesterday. Meanwhile, strong majorities, including Republicans, favor increased revenue from the wealthiest Americans and most profitable corporations being a part of any deficit reduction package.

So let me conclude by saying that I hope very much President Obama does not reach any agreement with the Republicans which includes cuts in Social Security. Social Security has not contributed one nickel to our national debt. It is a successful program and widely supported by the American people who are benefiting from it every single day. More to the point, President Obama, when he campaigned for office, made it clear when he told the American people if he was elected President he would not be cutting Social Security, and the American people expect him to keep his word.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Source