On the recordFebruary 13, 2002
what this shows is that during the period of time we are talking about, we are going to have a non-Social Security surplus of almost a half trillion dollars, $463 billion to be exact. The Senator from North Dakota can't have it both ways. In his resolution he uses these statistics to calculate how much a permanent repeal of the death tax is going to cost and says it is $104 billion over 10 years. That is what the budget says. But you can't use that statistic and then ignore the other half of the equation, which is that during the same period of time we will have a surplus of $463 billion. That doesn't count any of the Social Security surplus. If you subtract 104 from 463, you are not even close to getting to the Social Security surplus. You still have a significant $359 billion surplus, plus Social Security. I ask my colleague this: I would be happy to support his resolution if he would be willing to drop the clause that says it is going to cost $104 billion over the next 10 years, all of which would further reduce the Social Security surplus, since that is a false statement, and also if he would drop the sentence ``Under the administration's fiscal budget, the Federal Government is projected to spend the Social Security surplus for other purposes in each of the next 10 years,'' because that also is demonstrably false under the President's budget submission.
Source
govinfo.gov




