Presidential
Candidates’ Positions On Social Security Reform
George
W. Bush
http://www.georgewbush.com/
Stance on Social
Security reform featuring private accounts: favors.
"Social
Security has been called the third rail of American politics,
the one you’re not supposed to touch because it might shock
you. But if you don’t touch it, you cannot fix it. And I
intend to fix it. To seniors in this country: You earned your
benefits, you made your plans, and President George W. Bush will
keep the promise of Social Security. No changes, no reductions,
no way… Now is the time for Republicans and Democrats to
end the politics of fear and save Social Security, together.
For younger workers, we will give you the option -- your choice
-- to put a part of your payroll taxes into sound, responsible
investments. This will mean a higher return on your money, and,
over 30 or 40 years, a nest egg to help your retirement, or pass
along to your children. When this money is in your name, in your
account, it’s not just a program, it’s your property.
Now is the time to give American workers security and independence
that no politician can ever take away."
[Source:
speech accepting Republican presidential nomination, August 3,
2000]
"People
ought to be allowed to invest part of their monies in personal
savings accounts in order to make sure that there are benefits
available in the long run.... The key tough decision is how much
money you’re going to allow to go into personal savings accounts,
and how much will be available for a basic plan, as an insurance
policy for the long term.... It’s an issue where a president
is going to have to say, I’m going to spend capital, political
capital gained in the course of a campaign ... to bring both Democrats
and Republicans together to solve this problem." [Source:
Meet the Press, November 21, 1999]
"At
a time for leadership – for long-term thinking – my
opponent proposes a band-aid approach. He says: ‘If it ain’t
broke, don’t fix it.’ But in the lifetime of some people
in this room, it will be broke, and we must fix it. With every
day of delay this becomes more difficult. For eight years, the
Clinton/Gore administration has failed to act. And now Al Gore
wants to pass the burden on to future generations. The Gore plan
will eventually require either a 25 percent increase in income
taxes – the largest in our history – or a substantial
reduction in benefits.
"…reform
should include personal retirement accounts for young people –
an element of all the major
bipartisan
plans. The idea works very simply. A young worker can take some
portion of his or her payroll tax and put it in a fund that invests
in stocks and bonds. We will establish basic standards of safety
and soundness, so that investments are only in steady, reliable
funds. There will be no fly-by-night speculators or day trading.
And money in this account could only be used for retirement, or
passed along as an inheritance.
[Source:
speech at the Rancho Cucamonga Senior Center on Monday, May 15,
2000]
Complete
Bush Social Security Package Documents are available at www.georgewbush.com
Richard Cheney
(Candidate for Vice President)
Stance on Social
Security reform featuring private accounts: favors.
"For
eight years, Clinton and Gore have talked about Social
Security reform, never acting, never once offering
a serious plan to save the system. In the time left to them, I
have every confidence they’ll go right on talking about it.
Those days are passing, too. There will be no more spreading of
fear and panic, no more dividing of generations against one another,
no more delaying and excuse-making and shirking of our duties
to the elderly. George W. Bush and I, with a united Congress,
will save Social Security."
[Source:
speech accepting the Republican vice presidential nomination,
August 2, 2000]
Al
Gore
http://www.AlGore2000.com/issues/index.html
Stance on Social
Security reform featuring private accounts: opposes.
"We
have the chance to reform Social Security the right way, in a
way that preserves its basic guarantees, pays down our debt, keeps
our economy strong, and enables us to meet our other great challenges."
Gore has detailed a plan to keep Social Security solvent through
at least 2050. As President, Gore would use today’s budget
surpluses to pay down the national debt and use the interest saved
from debt reduction to shore up the Social Security Trust Fund.
Gore would also raise benefits for widows and eliminate the motherhood
penalty that reduces benefits for women who take time off from
work to raise their children. Gore supports a guaranteed benefit
for Social Security and opposes raising the retirement age. "Social
Security isn’t supposed to be a system of winners and losers.
It’s supposed to be a bedrock guarantee of a minimum decent
retirement,"
[Source:
press release for speech delivered at Fordham University, NY May
16, 2000]
"Social
Security is a solemn compact. Its basic guarantee of retirement
security is based on its guaranteed minimum benefit," Gore
said. "To turn Social Security into a system of winners and
losers would jeopardize Social for all Americans," he said.
"Gov. Bush’s plan takes the ‘security’ of
Social Security." CNN.com reporting from Pennsylvania May
15, 2000
Empowerment
means people have the choice to save and invest for their own
retirements -- on top of the unshakeable foundation of Social
Security. I’ve proposed a new retirement savings plan that
matches families’ contributions, the way large employers
do in their pension programs. It lets even struggling families
build bigger nest eggs for the future. My plan is Social Security
plus, not Social Security minus. It’s the best of both worlds,
not the worst of both: you get all the advantages of private investment,
but no matter how the market performs, your Social Security will
always be there for you. We need to save and strengthen Social
Security, and I’m committed to doing so. But I don’t
believe we should privatize Social Security. That would take the
"trust" right out of the trust fund, draining away a
trillion dollars that is needed to pay Social Security for today’s
retirees. There needs to be a Social Security and Medicare lock-box,
with a sign on it that says: "hands-off, politicians."
That ought to be the law -- because otherwise, they’ll always
be tempted to use those programs as a piggy bank. As President,
I will veto the use of any money from Social Security and Medicare
for anything other than Social Security and Medicare. "
[Source:
remarks delivered to Democratic Leadership Council national conversation
in Baltimore, Maryland, July 15, 2000]
Joseph Lieberman
(Candidate for Vice President)
Stance on Social
Security reform featuring private accounts: opposes
"Lieberman
currently opposes personal retirement accounts, outlining his
views in a recent unpublished op-ed.
Following is a 1998 interview in which Lieberman expresses support
for personal retirement accounts. In addition, Lieberman also
favors keeping open the possibility of increasing the retirement
age, which Vice President Gore opposes."
Patrick
Buchanan
www.gopatgo2000.com
Stance on Social
Security reform featuring private accounts: leaning in favor.
"I trust
the people. You know, we gave ‘em IRA accounts. Folks didn’t
go out and blow that on anything. A lot of ‘em are sitting
there in their nest eggs and they’re growing. We ought to
do it again. In Chile, they take the whole Social Security fund,
put it, invest it in the country. You know ... it’s not 1938.
The times have changed and you can change, too. Crossfire, April
7, 1998
Q: How would
you save Social Security? A: Before you add anything to it, we
ought to make it solvent. That means way out, 50 years into the
future, and there’s got to be some bullets that have to be
bitten there. And before you add drugs or prescription drugs,
we’ve got to make sure that [Medicare] is solvent way out
into the future, like Social Security. Than you and I can argue
about whether we should add something new, or not add something
new.
[There should
be] an option to privatize part of Social Security, as long as
the individual is willing to take the risk, especially for younger
people. You [need to have] some kind of fall back, because quite
frankly, [for the situation where] some guy goes out and says,
look, I blew it all. You know what the government’s going
to do. Well, we’ll take care of you. Some provision in there
you ought to be taking a look.
Q: Would
you raise the retirement age?
A: I’m
open to [the idea of raising it]. But the idea that people are
told when you’re 65, the only way you get Social Security
when you’ve invested for 45 years, is if you quit work-that’s
outrageous! If a fellow wants to keep working all his life, he
should get his Social Security; if he retired he should get his
Social Security. Why do we punish folks who, at 65 and 66, in
their prime, and they want to keep working?
[MSNBC’s
"Equal Time" November 2, 1999]
Harry
Browne
www.harrybrown2000.org
Stance on Social
Security reform featuring private accounts: favors.
"Social
Security is inherently unsound for the simple reason that it’s
a political program run by politicians for political purposes.
It will never work and it will never be truly solvent. The only
answer is to take it completely out of the hands of the politicians."
"Social
Security brings a new dimension to the field of annuities, insurance,
and retirement. There are no long, complicated contracts. No actuarial
tables to pore over. Instead, Social Security operates on a very
simple principle: the politicians take your money from you and
squander it."
Phasing out
Social Security over many years won’t work. The first time
the stock market dives, the Democrats and the Republicans will
use that as an excuse to take over your retirement once again.
You’re told the government has to run your retirement for
you because some people are too irresponsible to do so for themselves.
But it’s wrong to take responsibility for your retirement
away from you simply because some other people are irresponsible."
[Source:
campaign web site]
Ralph
Nader
http://www.votenader.com
Stance on personal
accounts: opposes.
"Every
discussion of Social Security should begin by recognizing that
Social Security is a system of social insurance. It places government
in one of its noblest roles: Provision of a bedrock guarantee
to all members of society that you do not need to fear the financial
consequences of growing old or disabled. It is government as it
should work -- a coming together of society to ensure that we,
as a community, take care of each other as we age or suffer from
disabilities."
"From
the consumer or citizen perspective, one of the great benefits
of Social Security is its very certainty. As one of its great
assets, it offers systemic tranquility -- no matter what, people
know that in old age or disability, they can count on the social
security guarantee. As soon as the system is privatized in individual
accounts, in whole or significant measure, the commonwealth would
be perverted into a subsidy bonanza for brokers, who would take
their 2-to-5% cut. Systemic tranquility would be replaced by an
enforced anxiety.
"By
their very nature, market investments introduce risk into the
equation. There is nothing inherently wrong with risk, of course.
Risk and the returns on risky investments are an important motor
in our economy. If people believe there is an upside to risk and
are eager to invest in the stock market, in bonds, in hedge funds
or otherwise, they are free to do so, directly or through IRAs,
401Ks and other tax-subsidized private retirement devices.
"Social
Security privatization replaces certainty with risk. In a privatized
Social Security system, these fears would be well founded:
- What would
happen if the market crashed, and people suddenly saw the source
of 30 percent of their retirement income stream wiped away?
- What should
the government do if some significant portion of the populace
loses its entire retirement investment account due to unlucky
or misguided investments?
- What happens
to the old person who is ripped off through investment fraud?"
[Source:
speech at "Saving Social Security" Conference Jan. 21,
1999]
|
