I rise today because it was just a few weeks ago that the President of the United States in this very chamber said that we ought to reserve every dollar, every penny of a budgetary surplus and put it into Social Security. What was interesting about that to me is that basically what he was talking about, what he was outlining was the larger question of how we are going to save Social Security. In other words, if we take every penny of surplus and put that money where it belongs, which is in the Social Security Trust Fund, rather than borrowing from it, what we have done is we have taken a first step towards saving Social Security. But what that does, because of the way the budget works in Washington, D.C., what that would actually mean would be a pay-down of the national debt, which would be very good for Social Security, but again only a first step. To me what it raises is that larger question of how in fact do we save Social Security.
Marshall Sanford: “I rise today because it was just a few weeks ago that the President of the United States in this very chamber said that…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the importance of funding Social Security during a budget surplus.
Share
More from Marshall Sanford
It may have cost me an election in this case, but I stand by every one of those decisions to disagree with the president.
This amendment is not only about being against a Soviet-style regime and the quotas and a variety of other things that come with it, but this amendment is, hopefully, about common sense. The one thing we don't want to subsidize are the…
Are we the party of Donald J. Trump or are we the party of the ideals of conservative philosophy, market principle, limited government that we've always been about for a long time?
If this were a Democrat, if this were a President Obama or President Hillary Clinton, would there be more outrage by Republicans voiced? I assume the answer would be yes?





