Rich Neal: “we are now debating the second part of the ``90/10 Plan''. Earlier in a misguided vote the House decided to lock up 90…”

“we are now debating the second part of the ``90/10 Plan''. Earlier in a misguided vote the House decided to lock up 90 percent and not 100 percent of the projected surplus to save Social Security. Now, we are considering the 10 percent part of the plan. I have to admit that the 10 percent part of the plan is quite attractive. It is a package of modest tax cuts which are mostly targeted to the middle class and it include many tax cuts that Democrats have offered in the past and it includes a provision that I have worked on this past year. We should not be spending the Social Security trust fund surplus. We have to deal in budget realities, even though it is very politically enticing to vote for a tax cut right before the elections. However, I believe we were elected to make hard choices. The hard choice before us today is voting against very likable tax cuts in order to protect Social Security. There is not surplus right now except for the surplus in the Social Security trust fund. Without Social Security's temporary surplus, there would be a $137 billion deficit over the next five years so we should not be spending $80 billion that we do not have today. The Democratic substitute is responsible. It still provides tax relief, but not until effective until the Social Security trust fund is solvent for 75 years. The bill before us today includes a provision which I think is extremely important and should be in addressed before Congress adjourns.”