RE: Response to Moderator Search for Common Ground

[National Dialogue Moderator <moderator>]

Ron,

Thank you very much for your work in moderating this forum.  I also appreciate your comments about common ground.

Like Senator Gregg, I would have differences in some of the details of the suggestions you put forward, I would wholeheartedly agree that such an outline would represent a very good starting point for discussions.  Hopefully, we will move beyond the "No, you go first" debate that has paralyzed the administration and Congressional leaders in both parties on this issue.  The items you outlined all provide ammunition for for partisans on one side or the other to demagauge and attack the other side.  If we have leadership from the President and leaders in Congress from both parties and can build trust levels, an agreement to make Social Security strong for the next seventy five years and beyond is very possible.  

Getting something done will also require public pressure, because Members of Congress are unwilling to tackle tough issues unless they believe their constituents want them to address that issue.  Having spent my entire Congressional career talking to the folks I represent about the issues facing Social Security, I know that they are ready and willing to accept the tough choices that will be necessary to make our country strong for our children and grandchildren.  If all Members of Congress heard that message, the prospects for getting something done on this issue will improve dramatically.

I do want to echo some of the technical issues that Senator Gregg raised about the specifics of the suggestions you outlined.  First, it is very important to see how all of the provisions of a package work in connection with each other, both in terms of their impact on beneficiaries and on the fiscal soundness of the program.  Some provisions which may cause problems for beneficiaries in isolation may be offset by the benefits of another provision.  From a fiscal perspective, it is important to make sure that the combination of the package not only restores solvency over the entire 75 year period, but achieves savings over the entire period so the program doesn't go through major swings in financing or "fall of the cliff" at the end of the period.

I agree that it may be necessary to rely on some general revenues to close the gap in a final deal, We need to be cautious about relying on general revenues to fill the gap by supplementing the payroll taxes.  I am very concerned that making committments of general revenues based on projected surpluses that may not materialize as projected is very dangerous. If we decide today to commit trillions of dollars of general revenues to the Social Security trust fund based on current projections about what will happen over the next 15 years, we could have a major budgetary crisis if those surpluses are not as large as we think they will be today.  That is why the general revenue transfers in the Kolbe-Stenholm plan are based on the savings in the general budget we achieve with the CPI correction, and does not count on projected surpluses.  I also am reluctant to give Social Security a greater claim on general revenues ahead of all other government programs.  Before we decide to commit future general revenues to Social Security, we need to balance those transfers against other priorities for surplus dollars, including Medicare, health care for working families and children, education and other programs.   Despite these concerns, I am willing to consider some degree of general revenue transfers if they are part of a comprehensive solution.  Simply transfering money from general revenues is not a substitute for reforms of the system, but if we can agree on structural reforms up front, general revenue transfers could be a way to finish the job as part of an overall solution.

That aside, I think the framework you outlined -- individual accounts, progressive changes in benefits and improvements in the safety net, increases in the eligibility age and the computation period to reflect changes in life expectancy and work lives, corrections to make the CPI more accurate, increase in taxable wages and some general revenue transfers to finance the transition to individual accounts and close the gap to solvency -- would represent a very reasonable compromise.  I believe that the Kolbe-Stenholm plan contains provisions that achieve many of these objectives, and I am willing to consider other ideas on how to accomplish these ideas.  I hope that we can have that type of dialogue in Congress and with the administration over the next few months.

I would conclude by saying that I have greatly enjoyed participating in this forum.  I would like to compliment all of my fellow Panelists and everyong who participated in this forum for engaging in a very serious discussion. I regret that I have not been able to address every post over the last two weeks.  I have been very impressed by the tone of the discussions on the board and the interest that all of the participants have shown in this important issue.  I would encourage anyone who is interested in learning more about the Social Security plan I support to check my website at www.house.gov/stenholm and click on the Social Security link.  My thanks to our moderator, Ron Gebhardtsbauer, Laurie Maak with Information Renaissance and Americans Discuss Social Security for providing this very useful forum.


Congressman Charlie Stenholm