On the recordApril 5, 2005
I think it is an honest question, and it is one we should face honestly. The last time we did, in 1983, Mr. Greenspan's commission came up with a list of recommendations and said: Choose from this chart and you will lengthen the life of Social Security dramatically. Finally, we came up with a package, as the Senator from Pennsylvania described. A final vote in the House of Representatives included 81 Republicans voting with 158 Democrats. When it came to the Senate, there were more Republicans than Democrats supporting the Greenspan Commission proposal. Yes, it gets down to basic math, and that is what troubles me about some of the statements made by my colleagues on the floor. It seems we think we can defy the laws of gravity and the laws of mathematics, and it simply gets down to this: If you want to strengthen a program such as this, you are either going to raise taxes, cut benefits, or find some new way to generate money into that system. My colleagues' program is not a way that puts money into the system. It takes money out of the system that then can be invested, that may have a good return, and if it has a very good return, you are going to be the winner. If it goes soft on you, if you happen to have a bad investment, you are a loser. You have fewer benefits under Social Security, less money from your investments. The risk is there. But I think we need to get down to basics.…
Source
govinfo.gov




