BigGator5
Sic Semper Tyrannis
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2004
- Posts
- 4,830
In 1993, Voted for Higher Taxes on Social Security Benefits and Against Repealing Earnings Limit
Kerry Knew Bill Increased Taxes On People Making As Little As $30,000 A Year. “The bill also raises taxes – 75 percent from those who make over $100,000 and 25 percent from those who make between $30,000 and $100,000. I wish that we did not need to raise taxes, but every serious economist … has admitted that the budget cannot be balanced without increasing taxes somewhat.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 6/29/93, p. S8268)
Flip-Flopped on Repealing Social Security Earnings Test for Workers who have Reached Retirement Age:
In 1996, on Social Security Needing Dramatic Changes
“In an interview with the Globe, Kerry said dramatic changes are needed to make sure Social Security benefits are available for future retirees. He said the next Congress should consider controversial measures such as raising the retirement age and means-testing benefits, and called it ‘wacky’ that the taxes that pay for the system do not apply to income over $62,700.” (Michael Grunwald, “Kerry, Weld Diverge On Social Security,” The Boston Globe, 6/3/96)
“[Kerry] again called for a commission to look into changes in the Social Security system. He cited Sen. Daniel P. Moynihan, D-N.Y., as stating that for the first time in its history, Social Security will pay out more next year than it will take in. While the system must be made safe for this generation of retirees, Kerry said, ‘We have a generational responsibility not to burden future children.’ One possible reform, he said, involves allowing younger workers to put away private vested amounts away for retirement. Another would be a change in the Consumer Price Index, on which Social Security benefit adjustments are based.” (Emilie Astell, “Chase, Donoghue Lob Incompetence, Distortion Charges,” Worcester Telegram & Gazette, 7/23/96)
In 1998, on the Use of the Social Security Surplus
ABC’S COKIE ROBERTS: “[W]e have reports that there might be a budget surplus. The president is reported today to be talking about calling perhaps a special session of Congress to deal with Social Security and the problems facing Social Security. If there’s a surplus, should it go into the Social Security trust fund? Senator Kerry?” SEN. JOHN KERRY: “Well, I think there are a number of – first of all, there are many ways to fix the Social Security trust fund that don’t involve additional money. We need to take a look at those. But clearly, we need to look at them, Cokie. I’m all – I’m absolutely in favor of even a broader examination of the entitlement sector. Medicare is still troubled, and we have major pension liabilities that we need to look at. So I think there are some significant issues there. We ought to look at them. … But far more importantly, we face a set of delayed or deferred choices for the country, particularly with respect to children, with respect to our schools and our infrastructure. We have major investments in our schools to make; 92 percent of the schools in Massachusetts … are in a state of disrepair and need help. Many of the communities don’t have the tax base to do it on their own. We have millions of our children living in poverty.” (ABC’s “This Week,” 1/4/98)
ABC’s SAM DONALDSON: “Senator Kerry, if there is a surplus, is it a bubble that’s likely to disappear after two or three years? And would it not be folly to go spend a surplus which then evaporates and becomes a deficit?” Sen. JOHN KERRY: “Well, Sam, you can’t budget entirely to the future. We never have, and we’re not going to suddenly start doing that. We’re going to have to make tough choices all along. If the growth of the country continues to be what it is now, if the projections are that we have 10-percent increase in revenues, we’re going to have a significant surplus to make choices about. … The important thing is that we make a choice for a budget in one year that is sensible and sensitive to the needs of the country. … The notion that we can’t find in the growth of this year’s budget, and in that $1.7 trillion – with the proper adjustments needed on things like the CPI, the proper rectification of the Social Security and Medicare system -- we should be able to invest in the needs of the country. And they are very clear. I mean, you can’t have a 12 million kids under the age of three, a quarter of them living in poverty … without an adequate response ...” (ABC’s “This Week,” 1/4/98)
In 2001, on the Need for Social Security Reform, Transition Costs, and the Handling of the Budget
“I have yet to see a viable Social Security reform plan which did not need additional funds to address transitional costs.
***
Social Security's trustees reported in March that Social Security's tax income will fall short of Social Security's benefit payments beginning in 2016. Medicare's tax income will fall short of Medicare spending the same year. Social Security and Medicare's problems are related to the aging of the labor force. In the not-to-distant future, there will be too few workers in the workforce to maintain Social Security and Medicare as pay-as-you-go programs. These are not small problems.
In the case of Social Security, Congress will have to either reduce Social Security benefits, raise Social Security taxes, or find a third alternative. Individual accounts, partial privatization, or investment of Social Security funds in the stock market, even under the best of circumstances, regardless of how they are structured, will require use of large-scale additional funds to ensure that current and near retirees will not be penalized. But under the scenario I have outlined, there would be no General Treasury funds available and Social Security surpluses over the next ten years would be eliminated.
***
Dealing with the Social Security and Medicare's financial problems sooner rather than later minimizes the pain for beneficiaries and workers by allowing the government to address transitional costs before the problem reaches the breaking point.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 5/23/01, p.S5507-5508)
NBC’S TIM RUSSERT: “But, Senator, if you’re not for rolling back the tax cut this year or next year and you’re not for decreasing federal spending, you are advocating dipping into the Social Security trust fund.” SEN. KERRY: “It is possible that if you go into a recession, as President Bush has said, or if you’re at war there are exceptions where you might want to do that.” (NBC’s “Meet the Press,” 9/2/01)
In 2003, Starting to Back Away from Changes to Social Security
“[Kerry] told the audience here the country should consider raising Social Security taxes on incomes above $86,000 or capping the retirement benefits paid to wealthy Americans.” (David Yepsen, “Still Time For Kerry - But Hold The Ketchup,” The Des Moines Register, 8/14/03)
MR. RUSSERT: “In ‘96 you told The Globe you would look at raising the retirement age. You--no?” SEN. KERRY: “I would not--I said that was one of many options that were out there that people would put on the table. Back then we were talking about putting everything on the table. I would not do that, period.” MR. RUSSERT: “You’re now taking it off the table?” SEN. KERRY: “Well, somebody else may put it on the table, but it’s not happening in a Kerry administration.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 8/31/03)
SEN. KERRY: “I’m not for means-testing. I’m not for breaking anything in the Social Security compact that’s existed from Franklin Roosevelt. I’ll tell you what I won’t do before I’ll tell you what I’ll do. … I’m not going to lift the retirement age or make it harder for hard-working Americans to retire. We ought to try to retire earlier in America and I’m not going to means-test. What I talked about was that today people are living longer. If you’re very, very wealthy, and you live beyond 77 years old, which most people do, if you live to be in the 60s, you’re going to live to be in the 80s. Someone who’s very wealthy is fully repaid in their Social Security by the time they are 77 years old. So that wealthy person may be drawing down money they didn’t put in, plus interest, from somebody earning $20,000 a year. Now, as a matter of fundamental fairness, I don’t understand why John Kerry and Theresa ought to be getting from someone earning $22,000, if I were lucky enough to live into the 80s, money from them.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 8/31/03)
“I think we have to look at how we make it more progressive, and all I said was, ‘Today, there’s a cutoff at $86,000.’ Now, I wouldn’t start with the people at $86,000. I’d start with the wealthiest people in the country if you need to ...” MR. RUSSERT: “How much?” SEN. KERRY: “I don’t know yet. I have no idea. I simply said we have to look at this because we have to guarantee that Social Security is whole. It starts running out of money in 2027 and we have a generational responsibility to make it strong.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 8/31/03)
In 2004, More Changing of Positions, Including Opposing Means-Testing and then Calling for It
“The most important thing we need to do to make Social Security strong in this country for the future is strengthen our economy itself and provide better jobs for our citizens, so they, in fact, can pay the checks in that pay current retirees.” (The Des Moines Register Democrat Presidential Candidates Debate, Des Moines, IA, 1/4/04)
“[Y]ou don’t cut the benefits to people that you’ve promised. You can do things to guarantee that you keep Medicare solvent, as we’ve done. We did that in the United States Congress. And we did it with respect to Social Security. And this president wants to privatize Social Security, which will in fact make it more at risk than it is today. One of the things we haven’t talked about yet, if you want to talk about how we are going to help people, the critical issue on the minds of most people in South Carolina and across the country is health care costs themselves.” (MSNBC/Young Democrats Of South Carolina/ Furman University Democrat Presidential Candidates Debate, Greenville, SC, 1/29/04)
“Citing a ‘generational responsibility’ to fix Social Security, [Kerry] said in 1996 that Congress should consider means-testing benefits. But that Kerry is nowhere to be found on the campaign trail.” (Editorial, “Populism Redux,” The Washington Post, 2/1/04)
“In his ‘Compact with America’s Seniors’ Kerry says ‘the greatest generation seniors should be able to count on Medicare and Social Security, on affordable prescription drugs, on quality options for long term care.’ You will find nothing else on Social Security in that compact. A nice statement, now what’s the policy, we ask? Evidently, for John Kerry, in regard to Social Security, as in national security – do nothing.” (Seth Leibsohn and Shaun Small, Op-Ed, “Kerry Do-Nothingism,” National Review Online, 2/10/04)
“[F]rontrunner John Kerry pays lip service to protecting senior’s benefits. But one could travel for days on his campaign bus before learning that the system needed any fixing at all. This is surprising since experts in both parties are convinced that Social Security needs a dramatic overhaul, soon. … Democrats, riddled with internal dissent on the proper course for fixing the system, have trouble distinguishing themselves as anything but defenders of the status quo.” (Jonathan Darman, “No Time For A Great Debate,” Newsweek Online, 2/17/04)
FOX NEWS CHANNEL’S NEIL CAVUTO: “So, if – Social Security as it stands now, what would you do to fix it?” SEN. JOHN KERRY: “Strengthen the economy. And not dig into the deficit. Not borrow from social security, to pay tax cuts to the wealthy Americans. … I think if we strengthen our economy and we have a sound fiscal approach, social security will be strong through this century. I have no question about that. We do not have to cut social security benefits in order to pay for George Bush’s ill-advised tax cut.” (Fox News Channel’s “Cavuto On Business,” 4/7/04)
“Back in 1995, you said we have to be bold. And it might be unpopular, but we should consider raising the retirement age and means testing. Do you stand by those statements?” KERRY: “No, I rejected that. We looked at that and we found that we don’t have to do it.” (Sen. John Kerry, NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 4/18/04)
“Did John Kerry endorse means-testing Social Security--shaving the benefits of the affluent elderly--on Meet the Press today? I think he did! Let’s go to the transcript. Kerry’s just been asked how he’s going to make Social Security solvent. At first Kerry says he’s ‘rejected’ a 1995 statement of his that called for raising the retirement age and means-testing. But then he says: SEN. KERRY: ‘Tim, we’re going to have a bigger economy. We have more Americans who are working. We have the ability to grow out of it. Now, if we don’t do that--let me give you an idea. You and I earn a lot of money. We’re very lucky. If you live to be 85, Tim, do you think it’s right that somebody who earns $30,000 a year after you’ve gotten all your money out of Social Security, after you’ve gotten everything and more than you paid is paying you money? I think there are plenty of ways to look at things. We don’t have to tell Americans it won’t be there, because it will be there. And we certainly don’t have to cut benefits to pay for George Bush’s unaffordable tax cut.’ [Emph. added] Sounds like a modified version of means-testing that would only kick in after rich retirees had gotten their contributions back in the form of benefits.” (Mickey Kaus,”Did Kerry Endorse ‘Means-Testing’?” Slate.com, 4/18/04)
Appendix A
Excerpts of “Kerry hints at reform for Social Security”
By Glen Johnson
Boston Globe
8/14/2003
”’Rich people are getting checks from poor people, well beyond what they put into the system,’ said Kerry, a millionaire in his own right and the husband of Teresa Heinz Kerry. She is a philanthropist and heiress to the Heinz ketchup empire whose net worth has been estimated at more than $550 million. Kerry said he had a right to recoup his personal tax payments into the retirement system but no need for government support beyond that.”
***
“Another idea Kerry said he would consider is raising the cut-off point after which people no longer pay into the system. Americans pay Social Security taxes only on the first $86,000 they earn in a year. Kerry said he has heard suggestions about raising that threshold as a way of building up the fund for the pending retirement of the baby boom generation. ‘Maybe people ought to pay up to $100,000 or $120,000, I don't know,’ the senator said.”
***
“Kerry presented his ideas in response to an audience question. Aware of the potential political peril, he took pains to couch his remarks, both to the county Democrats and to a group of reporters who interviewed him after the appearance. He said he has not committed to the ideas and would consider them only after assembling ‘a group of wise souls who've been through the process’ to conduct a larger review of Social Security.
Kerry also said he has decided against two ideas that have already generated protests: raising the full Social Security retirement age beyond 67, and reducing the payments made under the program. In addition, the senator said his administration would not consider privatizing Social Security, as President Bush has advocated, which would allow individuals to invest a portion of their Social Security taxes in the stock market.
Kerry said the recent decline of the stock market highlights the risk of that approach. ‘We can save Social Security, and I guarantee I will, and everybody gets it, everybody gets it,’ Kerry said. ‘I'm just trying to say it's not as complicated as some people think it may be. I will not touch the [social] contract. The contract, in my judgment, is sacrosanct between generations.’”
Appendix B
Excerpts of “Meet the Press”
August 31, 2003 Sunday
NBC News Transcripts
MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to something else you said about Social Security. This is how Glen Johnson of The Boston Globe reported it in August in your hometown paper. The headline: “Kerry Hints at Reform for Social Security. Declaring ‘I am blessed to be wealthy,’ Senator John F. Kerry said that, if elected president, he would consider some form of means-testing for rich Americans as part of a broader review of ideas to shore up the Social Security system. ...Another idea Kerry said he would consider is
raising the cut-off point after which people no longer pay into the system. Americans pay Social Security taxes only on the first $86,000 they earn in a year.”
SEN. KERRY: Yeah.
MR. RUSSERT: 6.2 percent. So if you raise that cap, say from $86,000 to $120,000, a husband and wife making $60,000 each, you’re going to raise their taxes up $2,000.
SEN. KERRY: No, I’m not. I’m not touching their tax. I wouldn’t touch theirs. That’s not what I said and let me...
MR. RUSSERT: Are you going to raise the cap above $86,000?
SEN. KERRY: Tim, let me be very clear. Let me very clear. Glen called means-testing something that I don’t—it’s not means-testing. I’m not for means-testing. I’m not for breaking anything in the Social Security compact that’s existed from Franklin Roosevelt. I’ll tell you what I won’t do before I’ll tell you what I’ll do. I’m not going to privatize Social Security. I’m not going to lift the retirement age or make it harder for hard-working Americans to retire. We ought to try to retire earlier in America and I’m not going to means-test. What I talked about was that today people are living longer. If you’re very, very wealthy, and you live beyond 77 years old, which most people do, if you live to be in the 60s, you’re going to live to be in the 80s. Someone who’s very wealthy is fully repaid in their Social Security by the time they are 77 years old. So that wealthy person may be drawing down money they didn’t put in, plus interest, from somebody earning
$20,000 a year. Now, as a matter of fundamental fairness, I don’t understand why John Kerry and Theresa ought to be getting from someone earning $22,000, if I were lucky enough to live into the 80s, money from them. I think we have to look at how we make it more progressive, and all I said was, “Today, there’s a cutoff at $86,000.” Now, I wouldn’t start with the people at $86,000. I’d start with the wealthiest people in the country if you need to...
MR. RUSSERT: How much?
SEN. KERRY: I don’t know yet. I have no idea. I simply said we have to look at this because we have to guarantee that Social Security is whole. It starts running out of money in 2027 and we have a generational responsibility to make it strong.
MR. RUSSERT: In ’96 you told The Globe you would look at raising the retirement age. You—no?
SEN. KERRY: I would not—I said that was one of many options that were out there that people would put on the table. Back then we were talking about putting everything on the table. I would not do that, period.
MR. RUSSERT: You’re now taking it off the table?
SEN. KERRY: Well, somebody else may put it on the table, but it’s not happening in a Kerry administration.
Appendix C
Excerpts of “Meet the Press”
NBC News Transcripts
April 18, 2004 Sunday
MR. RUSSERT: We always have a lot of spending programs which will be offset by savings, and many of those savings don't materialize. One program we know is going to cost money, Social Security and Medicare. There are now 40 million Americans on those programs. There's soon to be 80 million. The trustees of Social Security told us this, that if the programs remain in their current form, we're going to have to either cut benefits by a third or double the payroll tax from 7.5 percent to 15 percent for the average wage earner. Back in 1995, you said we have to be bold. And it might be unpopular, but we should consider raising the retirement age and means testing. Do you stand by those statements?
SEN. KERRY: No, I rejected that. We looked at that and we found that we don't have to do it. But you know what's interesting, Tim--I wish I had the power to press this button and put up on the screen what you said, because back in 1997, on November 9, you sat with Bill Clinton, and what you said to Bill Clinton is--you said, "Mr. President, by the year 2001 Medicare is going to be bankrupt and you're going to have to raise the retirement age. You're going to have to raise the premiums and you're going to have to cut the benefits." That's what you said. Guess what, Tim? He didn't do it. We didn't do it. And we made Medicare whole until the year 2029. We made Social Security whole until 2037.
Along comes George Bush. We have a downturn in the economy, an increase in expenditures for the military, and a big, big, big tax cut we can't afford. And all of a sudden, you look worse for Social Security and Medicare. I'm going to put us back on the track that we were in the 1990s. We said we were going to save Social Security first, and we had the ability to do it, without doing all these terrible things that you're saying. I'm not going to do those. I'm not going to cut Social Security benefits. I'm not going to extend the retirement age. And we're not going to have to raise the premiums. We can fix Social Security beginning with a stronger economy.
MR. RUSSERT: Double the number of people on it with current spending?
SEN. KERRY: Tim, we're going to have a bigger economy. We have more Americans who are working. We have the ability to grow out of it. Now, if we don't do that--let me give you an idea. You and I earn a lot of money. We're very lucky. If you live to be 85, Tim, do you think it's right that somebody who earns $30,000 a year after you've gotten all your money out of Social Security, after you've gotten everything and more than you paid is paying you money? I think there are plenty of ways to look at things. We don't have to tell Americans it won't be there, because it will be there. And we certainly don't have to cut benefits to pay for George Bush's unaffordable tax cut.
Appendix D
Excerpts From An Interview With John Kerry
Wall Street Journal
May 3, 2004
WSJ: In the case of Social Security, if you reject privatization, as you do, isn't it pretty obvious there are limited amounts of choices? We know what needs to be done. The question is how can we do them when you've taken things like raising the retirement age off the table?
KERRY: Because I don't believe that that is a necessary response or action to any of the things. I just don't believe it is. First of all, right now, the reason Social Security is challenged is because George Bush has an unaffordable tax-cut plan in place, an irresponsible, unaffordable tax plan. And that's why we're losing 10 years of Medicare. We were in a good position to be responsible about Social Security. We put ourselves there. And that's what I intend to try to get back to. And it begins with a strong economy. It also extends to being willing to be bipartisan, and trying to pull people together and find out what we need to do. I've heard the Cassandras of these programs for the 20 years I've been in the Senate, an each time we've been able to respond without doing the draconian things everybody suggests.
WSJ: But you do not think it's necessary, to solve this problem, to raise taxes, cut benefits, or delay benefits?
KERRY: I don't think you have to at this point in time, no. I think what you have to do is be fiscally responsible, grow the economy, put together a bipartisan commission, and take a look at what the options are. And let's see where they are at that point in time.
... I mean look, why should Teresa Heinz Kerry, John Kerry get a check once I've gotten back everything I've put in that's mine just because I'm living longer. Now that's not mean testing. I'm not for means testing.
WSJ: So what is it? How do you solve that issue?
KERRY: We already decide we have a progressive system. That's adding to its progressivity. It's not means testing. Everybody gets Social Security. Everybody has a right to get what they get. This is progressivity, if you did it. I'm not even sure we need to do that...
But I'm not going to do it by cutting the benefits for people today. I don't think you have to do that.
------------------------------------------------------------
Some good reading there. Comments?
- Voted twice to increase income taxes on Social Security benefits for seniors earning as little as $34,000. (H.R. 2264, CQ Vote #190: Passed 50-49: R 0-43; D 49-6, With Vice President Al Gore Casting The Tie-Breaking Vote, 6/25/93, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 2264, CQ Vote #247: Adopted 51-50: R 0-44; D 50-6, With Vice President Al Gore Casting The Tie-Breaking Vote, 8/6/93, Kerry Voted Yea)
- Voted three times to keep the Social Security tax hike in the budget. (S.Con.Res. 18, CQ Vote #57: Motion Agreed To 52-47: R 0-43; D 52-4, 3/24/93, Kerry Voted Yea; S.Con.Res. 18, CQ Vote #59: Motion Agreed To 55-44: R 0-43; D 55-1, 3/24/93, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1134, CQ Vote #169: Motion Agreed To 51-46: R 1-41; D 50-5, 6/24/93, Kerry Voted Yea)
- Voted three times against repealing the 1993 tax increase on Social Security Benefits. In 1996, the Senate Republican Policy Committee estimated repealing this tax would save seniors $33 billion. (S. Con. Res. 57, CQ Vote #142: Adopted 50-48: R 49-4; D 1-44, 5/22/96, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 8, CQ Vote #188: Adopted 58-41: R 54-1; D 4-40, 7/13/00, Kerry Voted Nay; S. Con. Res. 23, CQ Vote #94: Rejected 48-51: R 48-3; D 0-47; I 0-1, 3/25/03, Kerry Voted Nay; Senate Republican Policy Committee, “Budget Resolution/Repeal Of The 1993 Social Security Tax,” 5/22/96)
- Even Voted Against Provision Ensuring Increased Revenues Would Only Go To Social Security Trust Fund. (S. 1134, CQ Vote #184: Motion Agreed To 57-41: R 3-40; D 54-1, 6/25/93, Kerry Voted Yea)
Kerry Knew Bill Increased Taxes On People Making As Little As $30,000 A Year. “The bill also raises taxes – 75 percent from those who make over $100,000 and 25 percent from those who make between $30,000 and $100,000. I wish that we did not need to raise taxes, but every serious economist … has admitted that the budget cannot be balanced without increasing taxes somewhat.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 6/29/93, p. S8268)
Flip-Flopped on Repealing Social Security Earnings Test for Workers who have Reached Retirement Age:
- Against Eliminating Social Security Earnings Test. (H.R. 3167, CQ Vote #338: Motion Rejected 46-51: R 37-5; D 9-46, 10/27/93, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 5488, CQ Vote #201: Motion Rejected 51-42: R 30-10; D 21-32, 9/10/92, Kerry Voted Nay)
- For Eliminating Social Security Earnings Test. (H.R. 5, Vote #42; 3/22/00)
In 1996, on Social Security Needing Dramatic Changes
“In an interview with the Globe, Kerry said dramatic changes are needed to make sure Social Security benefits are available for future retirees. He said the next Congress should consider controversial measures such as raising the retirement age and means-testing benefits, and called it ‘wacky’ that the taxes that pay for the system do not apply to income over $62,700.” (Michael Grunwald, “Kerry, Weld Diverge On Social Security,” The Boston Globe, 6/3/96)
“[Kerry] again called for a commission to look into changes in the Social Security system. He cited Sen. Daniel P. Moynihan, D-N.Y., as stating that for the first time in its history, Social Security will pay out more next year than it will take in. While the system must be made safe for this generation of retirees, Kerry said, ‘We have a generational responsibility not to burden future children.’ One possible reform, he said, involves allowing younger workers to put away private vested amounts away for retirement. Another would be a change in the Consumer Price Index, on which Social Security benefit adjustments are based.” (Emilie Astell, “Chase, Donoghue Lob Incompetence, Distortion Charges,” Worcester Telegram & Gazette, 7/23/96)
In 1998, on the Use of the Social Security Surplus
ABC’S COKIE ROBERTS: “[W]e have reports that there might be a budget surplus. The president is reported today to be talking about calling perhaps a special session of Congress to deal with Social Security and the problems facing Social Security. If there’s a surplus, should it go into the Social Security trust fund? Senator Kerry?” SEN. JOHN KERRY: “Well, I think there are a number of – first of all, there are many ways to fix the Social Security trust fund that don’t involve additional money. We need to take a look at those. But clearly, we need to look at them, Cokie. I’m all – I’m absolutely in favor of even a broader examination of the entitlement sector. Medicare is still troubled, and we have major pension liabilities that we need to look at. So I think there are some significant issues there. We ought to look at them. … But far more importantly, we face a set of delayed or deferred choices for the country, particularly with respect to children, with respect to our schools and our infrastructure. We have major investments in our schools to make; 92 percent of the schools in Massachusetts … are in a state of disrepair and need help. Many of the communities don’t have the tax base to do it on their own. We have millions of our children living in poverty.” (ABC’s “This Week,” 1/4/98)
ABC’s SAM DONALDSON: “Senator Kerry, if there is a surplus, is it a bubble that’s likely to disappear after two or three years? And would it not be folly to go spend a surplus which then evaporates and becomes a deficit?” Sen. JOHN KERRY: “Well, Sam, you can’t budget entirely to the future. We never have, and we’re not going to suddenly start doing that. We’re going to have to make tough choices all along. If the growth of the country continues to be what it is now, if the projections are that we have 10-percent increase in revenues, we’re going to have a significant surplus to make choices about. … The important thing is that we make a choice for a budget in one year that is sensible and sensitive to the needs of the country. … The notion that we can’t find in the growth of this year’s budget, and in that $1.7 trillion – with the proper adjustments needed on things like the CPI, the proper rectification of the Social Security and Medicare system -- we should be able to invest in the needs of the country. And they are very clear. I mean, you can’t have a 12 million kids under the age of three, a quarter of them living in poverty … without an adequate response ...” (ABC’s “This Week,” 1/4/98)
In 2001, on the Need for Social Security Reform, Transition Costs, and the Handling of the Budget
“I have yet to see a viable Social Security reform plan which did not need additional funds to address transitional costs.
***
Social Security's trustees reported in March that Social Security's tax income will fall short of Social Security's benefit payments beginning in 2016. Medicare's tax income will fall short of Medicare spending the same year. Social Security and Medicare's problems are related to the aging of the labor force. In the not-to-distant future, there will be too few workers in the workforce to maintain Social Security and Medicare as pay-as-you-go programs. These are not small problems.
In the case of Social Security, Congress will have to either reduce Social Security benefits, raise Social Security taxes, or find a third alternative. Individual accounts, partial privatization, or investment of Social Security funds in the stock market, even under the best of circumstances, regardless of how they are structured, will require use of large-scale additional funds to ensure that current and near retirees will not be penalized. But under the scenario I have outlined, there would be no General Treasury funds available and Social Security surpluses over the next ten years would be eliminated.
***
Dealing with the Social Security and Medicare's financial problems sooner rather than later minimizes the pain for beneficiaries and workers by allowing the government to address transitional costs before the problem reaches the breaking point.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 5/23/01, p.S5507-5508)
NBC’S TIM RUSSERT: “But, Senator, if you’re not for rolling back the tax cut this year or next year and you’re not for decreasing federal spending, you are advocating dipping into the Social Security trust fund.” SEN. KERRY: “It is possible that if you go into a recession, as President Bush has said, or if you’re at war there are exceptions where you might want to do that.” (NBC’s “Meet the Press,” 9/2/01)
In 2003, Starting to Back Away from Changes to Social Security
“[Kerry] told the audience here the country should consider raising Social Security taxes on incomes above $86,000 or capping the retirement benefits paid to wealthy Americans.” (David Yepsen, “Still Time For Kerry - But Hold The Ketchup,” The Des Moines Register, 8/14/03)
MR. RUSSERT: “In ‘96 you told The Globe you would look at raising the retirement age. You--no?” SEN. KERRY: “I would not--I said that was one of many options that were out there that people would put on the table. Back then we were talking about putting everything on the table. I would not do that, period.” MR. RUSSERT: “You’re now taking it off the table?” SEN. KERRY: “Well, somebody else may put it on the table, but it’s not happening in a Kerry administration.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 8/31/03)
SEN. KERRY: “I’m not for means-testing. I’m not for breaking anything in the Social Security compact that’s existed from Franklin Roosevelt. I’ll tell you what I won’t do before I’ll tell you what I’ll do. … I’m not going to lift the retirement age or make it harder for hard-working Americans to retire. We ought to try to retire earlier in America and I’m not going to means-test. What I talked about was that today people are living longer. If you’re very, very wealthy, and you live beyond 77 years old, which most people do, if you live to be in the 60s, you’re going to live to be in the 80s. Someone who’s very wealthy is fully repaid in their Social Security by the time they are 77 years old. So that wealthy person may be drawing down money they didn’t put in, plus interest, from somebody earning $20,000 a year. Now, as a matter of fundamental fairness, I don’t understand why John Kerry and Theresa ought to be getting from someone earning $22,000, if I were lucky enough to live into the 80s, money from them.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 8/31/03)
“I think we have to look at how we make it more progressive, and all I said was, ‘Today, there’s a cutoff at $86,000.’ Now, I wouldn’t start with the people at $86,000. I’d start with the wealthiest people in the country if you need to ...” MR. RUSSERT: “How much?” SEN. KERRY: “I don’t know yet. I have no idea. I simply said we have to look at this because we have to guarantee that Social Security is whole. It starts running out of money in 2027 and we have a generational responsibility to make it strong.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 8/31/03)
In 2004, More Changing of Positions, Including Opposing Means-Testing and then Calling for It
“The most important thing we need to do to make Social Security strong in this country for the future is strengthen our economy itself and provide better jobs for our citizens, so they, in fact, can pay the checks in that pay current retirees.” (The Des Moines Register Democrat Presidential Candidates Debate, Des Moines, IA, 1/4/04)
“[Y]ou don’t cut the benefits to people that you’ve promised. You can do things to guarantee that you keep Medicare solvent, as we’ve done. We did that in the United States Congress. And we did it with respect to Social Security. And this president wants to privatize Social Security, which will in fact make it more at risk than it is today. One of the things we haven’t talked about yet, if you want to talk about how we are going to help people, the critical issue on the minds of most people in South Carolina and across the country is health care costs themselves.” (MSNBC/Young Democrats Of South Carolina/ Furman University Democrat Presidential Candidates Debate, Greenville, SC, 1/29/04)
“Citing a ‘generational responsibility’ to fix Social Security, [Kerry] said in 1996 that Congress should consider means-testing benefits. But that Kerry is nowhere to be found on the campaign trail.” (Editorial, “Populism Redux,” The Washington Post, 2/1/04)
“In his ‘Compact with America’s Seniors’ Kerry says ‘the greatest generation seniors should be able to count on Medicare and Social Security, on affordable prescription drugs, on quality options for long term care.’ You will find nothing else on Social Security in that compact. A nice statement, now what’s the policy, we ask? Evidently, for John Kerry, in regard to Social Security, as in national security – do nothing.” (Seth Leibsohn and Shaun Small, Op-Ed, “Kerry Do-Nothingism,” National Review Online, 2/10/04)
“[F]rontrunner John Kerry pays lip service to protecting senior’s benefits. But one could travel for days on his campaign bus before learning that the system needed any fixing at all. This is surprising since experts in both parties are convinced that Social Security needs a dramatic overhaul, soon. … Democrats, riddled with internal dissent on the proper course for fixing the system, have trouble distinguishing themselves as anything but defenders of the status quo.” (Jonathan Darman, “No Time For A Great Debate,” Newsweek Online, 2/17/04)
FOX NEWS CHANNEL’S NEIL CAVUTO: “So, if – Social Security as it stands now, what would you do to fix it?” SEN. JOHN KERRY: “Strengthen the economy. And not dig into the deficit. Not borrow from social security, to pay tax cuts to the wealthy Americans. … I think if we strengthen our economy and we have a sound fiscal approach, social security will be strong through this century. I have no question about that. We do not have to cut social security benefits in order to pay for George Bush’s ill-advised tax cut.” (Fox News Channel’s “Cavuto On Business,” 4/7/04)
“Back in 1995, you said we have to be bold. And it might be unpopular, but we should consider raising the retirement age and means testing. Do you stand by those statements?” KERRY: “No, I rejected that. We looked at that and we found that we don’t have to do it.” (Sen. John Kerry, NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 4/18/04)
“Did John Kerry endorse means-testing Social Security--shaving the benefits of the affluent elderly--on Meet the Press today? I think he did! Let’s go to the transcript. Kerry’s just been asked how he’s going to make Social Security solvent. At first Kerry says he’s ‘rejected’ a 1995 statement of his that called for raising the retirement age and means-testing. But then he says: SEN. KERRY: ‘Tim, we’re going to have a bigger economy. We have more Americans who are working. We have the ability to grow out of it. Now, if we don’t do that--let me give you an idea. You and I earn a lot of money. We’re very lucky. If you live to be 85, Tim, do you think it’s right that somebody who earns $30,000 a year after you’ve gotten all your money out of Social Security, after you’ve gotten everything and more than you paid is paying you money? I think there are plenty of ways to look at things. We don’t have to tell Americans it won’t be there, because it will be there. And we certainly don’t have to cut benefits to pay for George Bush’s unaffordable tax cut.’ [Emph. added] Sounds like a modified version of means-testing that would only kick in after rich retirees had gotten their contributions back in the form of benefits.” (Mickey Kaus,”Did Kerry Endorse ‘Means-Testing’?” Slate.com, 4/18/04)
Appendix A
Excerpts of “Kerry hints at reform for Social Security”
By Glen Johnson
Boston Globe
8/14/2003
”’Rich people are getting checks from poor people, well beyond what they put into the system,’ said Kerry, a millionaire in his own right and the husband of Teresa Heinz Kerry. She is a philanthropist and heiress to the Heinz ketchup empire whose net worth has been estimated at more than $550 million. Kerry said he had a right to recoup his personal tax payments into the retirement system but no need for government support beyond that.”
***
“Another idea Kerry said he would consider is raising the cut-off point after which people no longer pay into the system. Americans pay Social Security taxes only on the first $86,000 they earn in a year. Kerry said he has heard suggestions about raising that threshold as a way of building up the fund for the pending retirement of the baby boom generation. ‘Maybe people ought to pay up to $100,000 or $120,000, I don't know,’ the senator said.”
***
“Kerry presented his ideas in response to an audience question. Aware of the potential political peril, he took pains to couch his remarks, both to the county Democrats and to a group of reporters who interviewed him after the appearance. He said he has not committed to the ideas and would consider them only after assembling ‘a group of wise souls who've been through the process’ to conduct a larger review of Social Security.
Kerry also said he has decided against two ideas that have already generated protests: raising the full Social Security retirement age beyond 67, and reducing the payments made under the program. In addition, the senator said his administration would not consider privatizing Social Security, as President Bush has advocated, which would allow individuals to invest a portion of their Social Security taxes in the stock market.
Kerry said the recent decline of the stock market highlights the risk of that approach. ‘We can save Social Security, and I guarantee I will, and everybody gets it, everybody gets it,’ Kerry said. ‘I'm just trying to say it's not as complicated as some people think it may be. I will not touch the [social] contract. The contract, in my judgment, is sacrosanct between generations.’”
Appendix B
Excerpts of “Meet the Press”
August 31, 2003 Sunday
NBC News Transcripts
MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to something else you said about Social Security. This is how Glen Johnson of The Boston Globe reported it in August in your hometown paper. The headline: “Kerry Hints at Reform for Social Security. Declaring ‘I am blessed to be wealthy,’ Senator John F. Kerry said that, if elected president, he would consider some form of means-testing for rich Americans as part of a broader review of ideas to shore up the Social Security system. ...Another idea Kerry said he would consider is
raising the cut-off point after which people no longer pay into the system. Americans pay Social Security taxes only on the first $86,000 they earn in a year.”
SEN. KERRY: Yeah.
MR. RUSSERT: 6.2 percent. So if you raise that cap, say from $86,000 to $120,000, a husband and wife making $60,000 each, you’re going to raise their taxes up $2,000.
SEN. KERRY: No, I’m not. I’m not touching their tax. I wouldn’t touch theirs. That’s not what I said and let me...
MR. RUSSERT: Are you going to raise the cap above $86,000?
SEN. KERRY: Tim, let me be very clear. Let me very clear. Glen called means-testing something that I don’t—it’s not means-testing. I’m not for means-testing. I’m not for breaking anything in the Social Security compact that’s existed from Franklin Roosevelt. I’ll tell you what I won’t do before I’ll tell you what I’ll do. I’m not going to privatize Social Security. I’m not going to lift the retirement age or make it harder for hard-working Americans to retire. We ought to try to retire earlier in America and I’m not going to means-test. What I talked about was that today people are living longer. If you’re very, very wealthy, and you live beyond 77 years old, which most people do, if you live to be in the 60s, you’re going to live to be in the 80s. Someone who’s very wealthy is fully repaid in their Social Security by the time they are 77 years old. So that wealthy person may be drawing down money they didn’t put in, plus interest, from somebody earning
$20,000 a year. Now, as a matter of fundamental fairness, I don’t understand why John Kerry and Theresa ought to be getting from someone earning $22,000, if I were lucky enough to live into the 80s, money from them. I think we have to look at how we make it more progressive, and all I said was, “Today, there’s a cutoff at $86,000.” Now, I wouldn’t start with the people at $86,000. I’d start with the wealthiest people in the country if you need to...
MR. RUSSERT: How much?
SEN. KERRY: I don’t know yet. I have no idea. I simply said we have to look at this because we have to guarantee that Social Security is whole. It starts running out of money in 2027 and we have a generational responsibility to make it strong.
MR. RUSSERT: In ’96 you told The Globe you would look at raising the retirement age. You—no?
SEN. KERRY: I would not—I said that was one of many options that were out there that people would put on the table. Back then we were talking about putting everything on the table. I would not do that, period.
MR. RUSSERT: You’re now taking it off the table?
SEN. KERRY: Well, somebody else may put it on the table, but it’s not happening in a Kerry administration.
Appendix C
Excerpts of “Meet the Press”
NBC News Transcripts
April 18, 2004 Sunday
MR. RUSSERT: We always have a lot of spending programs which will be offset by savings, and many of those savings don't materialize. One program we know is going to cost money, Social Security and Medicare. There are now 40 million Americans on those programs. There's soon to be 80 million. The trustees of Social Security told us this, that if the programs remain in their current form, we're going to have to either cut benefits by a third or double the payroll tax from 7.5 percent to 15 percent for the average wage earner. Back in 1995, you said we have to be bold. And it might be unpopular, but we should consider raising the retirement age and means testing. Do you stand by those statements?
SEN. KERRY: No, I rejected that. We looked at that and we found that we don't have to do it. But you know what's interesting, Tim--I wish I had the power to press this button and put up on the screen what you said, because back in 1997, on November 9, you sat with Bill Clinton, and what you said to Bill Clinton is--you said, "Mr. President, by the year 2001 Medicare is going to be bankrupt and you're going to have to raise the retirement age. You're going to have to raise the premiums and you're going to have to cut the benefits." That's what you said. Guess what, Tim? He didn't do it. We didn't do it. And we made Medicare whole until the year 2029. We made Social Security whole until 2037.
Along comes George Bush. We have a downturn in the economy, an increase in expenditures for the military, and a big, big, big tax cut we can't afford. And all of a sudden, you look worse for Social Security and Medicare. I'm going to put us back on the track that we were in the 1990s. We said we were going to save Social Security first, and we had the ability to do it, without doing all these terrible things that you're saying. I'm not going to do those. I'm not going to cut Social Security benefits. I'm not going to extend the retirement age. And we're not going to have to raise the premiums. We can fix Social Security beginning with a stronger economy.
MR. RUSSERT: Double the number of people on it with current spending?
SEN. KERRY: Tim, we're going to have a bigger economy. We have more Americans who are working. We have the ability to grow out of it. Now, if we don't do that--let me give you an idea. You and I earn a lot of money. We're very lucky. If you live to be 85, Tim, do you think it's right that somebody who earns $30,000 a year after you've gotten all your money out of Social Security, after you've gotten everything and more than you paid is paying you money? I think there are plenty of ways to look at things. We don't have to tell Americans it won't be there, because it will be there. And we certainly don't have to cut benefits to pay for George Bush's unaffordable tax cut.
Appendix D
Excerpts From An Interview With John Kerry
Wall Street Journal
May 3, 2004
WSJ: In the case of Social Security, if you reject privatization, as you do, isn't it pretty obvious there are limited amounts of choices? We know what needs to be done. The question is how can we do them when you've taken things like raising the retirement age off the table?
KERRY: Because I don't believe that that is a necessary response or action to any of the things. I just don't believe it is. First of all, right now, the reason Social Security is challenged is because George Bush has an unaffordable tax-cut plan in place, an irresponsible, unaffordable tax plan. And that's why we're losing 10 years of Medicare. We were in a good position to be responsible about Social Security. We put ourselves there. And that's what I intend to try to get back to. And it begins with a strong economy. It also extends to being willing to be bipartisan, and trying to pull people together and find out what we need to do. I've heard the Cassandras of these programs for the 20 years I've been in the Senate, an each time we've been able to respond without doing the draconian things everybody suggests.
WSJ: But you do not think it's necessary, to solve this problem, to raise taxes, cut benefits, or delay benefits?
KERRY: I don't think you have to at this point in time, no. I think what you have to do is be fiscally responsible, grow the economy, put together a bipartisan commission, and take a look at what the options are. And let's see where they are at that point in time.
... I mean look, why should Teresa Heinz Kerry, John Kerry get a check once I've gotten back everything I've put in that's mine just because I'm living longer. Now that's not mean testing. I'm not for means testing.
WSJ: So what is it? How do you solve that issue?
KERRY: We already decide we have a progressive system. That's adding to its progressivity. It's not means testing. Everybody gets Social Security. Everybody has a right to get what they get. This is progressivity, if you did it. I'm not even sure we need to do that...
But I'm not going to do it by cutting the benefits for people today. I don't think you have to do that.
------------------------------------------------------------
Some good reading there. Comments?
