Marshall Sanford: “I admire the intention of my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) on this proposal, but I would…”

“I admire the intention of my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) on this proposal, but I would respectfully ask that my colleagues reject it. I would say that for four different reasons. I would say, first of all, that the notion here is that this time it will be different. How many times have we heard that in Washington, D.C., this time it will be different? In other words, what we have been doing in Washington is borrowing against trust fund balances for the last 30 years, and what is proposed with this super-duper trust fund, if you will, is that this time it will be different. What people back home tell me is that they do not buy into the idea that this time things will be different. Two, I think it offers false hope. If we look at what the trustees have said, the trustees would say, whether this proposal went through or not, Social Security would begin to run shortfalls in about 15 years, and it would be out of money, unable to pay its obligations, in about 30 years. That would not change with this. Thirdly, I would say that it moves us in the wrong direction.”