Would the chairman acknowledge the $160 billion is only for 5 years? If you were to implement this policy over the full 75-year timeframe, the present value would be roughly $1 trillion. My calculation is not down to the last decimal point. But the point being not that $160 billion will save Social Security, nor $1 trillion, but doesn't the Senator think we ought to be making steps, even if it is not this approach, to begin to address these shortfalls as we go forward?
Jon S. Corzine: “Would the chairman acknowledge the $160 billion is only for 5 years? If you were to implement this policy over the full…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the financial implications of Social Security reform.
Share
More from Jon S. Corzine
I point out this year, by decision, the FOP is not taking a position with regard to my amendment.
I wish to say that I have nothing but the highest respect for the Senator from Virginia, and I fully appreciate that he is acting absolutely in good faith. I would like to hear what the unanimous consent is we are agreeing to so that once…
I will not be asking for a rollcall but a voice vote on my amendment acknowledging the realities and the practical aspects of moving the floor, if that is appropriate.
It is undermining the ability of working Americans to actually get good wages. That is why median income is down. That is why you go from $45,000 for a job lost to picking up a job worth $35,000.





