As we look to the next Congress, the one that will fix the Social Security system for the out years, the baby boomers, we need to maintain every dime we can so that we do not end up forcing people to work longer or live longer to benefit from the same Social Security system that those that preceded them have. We also need to think about this election year tax cut in another context. The average working family, paying the most regressive tax on income that we have, the FICA tax, would be, in effect, asked to take their taxes and transfer them to the proposed beneficiaries of this Republican election year tax cut. We are therefore asking our working families to take their hard-earned dollars to provide tax breaks for others. However valuable they may be, however worthy they may be, those tax breaks must wait for the day when we have a surplus in the general fund, and that, Mr. Speaker, is 5 or 6 years away. To go for the cotton candy of a tax cut in an election year out of the hides of working American families is unconscionable. This Congress should support the Rangel substitute and avoid doing it. Mr. Speaker, this Republican misses the point of what Americans really want. We do not want to take money out of the Social Security Trust Fund for purposes other than Social Security. The American people pay Social Security taxes and expect that money to go to Social Security.
Victor Fazio: “As we look to the next Congress, the one that will fix the Social Security system for the out years, the baby boomers…”
Editor's note · Context
Addressing the implications of tax cuts on Social Security funding during a floor speech.
Share
More from Victor Fazio
despite an overwhelming bipartisan defeat in the Senate, unfortunately we have before us another attempt to gut a program that gives women and minorities the chance to compete for Federal highway dollars. The Disadvantaged Business…
There may be another approach taken, if the gentlewoman will yield further, that I have not mentioned but still a way in which these growers would not be discriminated against vis-a-vis other agricultural producers?
I have been reading the gentleman's amendment, and I think that I can come up with a number of phrases that would apparently be permitted but which, under his amendment, would be very questionable. Think of words like ``Think Joe Smith''…
In addition, if I could ask of the leader, the Speaker has promised a vote on campaign finance reform by the end of March. I note that we have what appear to be four individual bills; I do not know the content of all of them. But is this…





