Harry Reid: Social Security Is 'Off The Table'

As Congress debates measures to reduce the deficit, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) declared Social Security "off the table" in a web video posted Monday.

Reid's sweeping rejection comes as congressional Republicans are calling for reductions in Social Security benefits, arguing that cuts to the program should be part of any long-term deficit reduction plan.

"The reason they're going after Social Security is that's where the money is," Reid said. "They want to take money that isn't theirs."

The video is of a Capitol event with the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, a frenemy of the majority leader that accused him of being a weak leader during the public option fight. Reid and the PCCC -- an online progressive advocacy group that claims more than half a million members -- are in full agreement, however, when it comes to Social Security. The PCCC held the event to thank Reid for taking an aggressive stand recently in defense of the old-age and disability insurance program.

"As long as I'm the majority leader, I'm going to do everything within my legislative powers to prevent privatizing or eliminating Social Security -- put simply, say, 'It's off the table,'" said Reid in remarks that will likely be referenced in the future as the debate over Social Security continues.

The program's actuaries say it can pay full benefits at least until 2037 and roughly four-fifths of benefits in the decades after. "The most successful social program in the history of the world is Social Security," Reid said.

WATCH:

Comments

[The Non-Politician]

08:46 PM on 02/12/2011

I suspect that, if Harry Reid is not just being political, that he needs to be educated on what an "unfunded liability" is and on the actual effect of the proposal to include partial personal accounts.

As a financial advisor emeritus, so to speak, I also questioned the risk of the partial personal account, but I found that risk to be minimal, since it is guaranteed (in the proposal) against any loss - which analytically seemed to be quite brilliant. And the upside is quite excellent.

The discussion at my site www.thenonpolitician.homestead.com, which has no revenues and no obligations, explains both of these. I think there are many more legislators who should be aware of all of this, before making conclusions - I believe it is their fiduciary duty to have an understanding of this.

I earnestly hope that rational, fact-based thinking will be used in these matters, with no evilizing or attributing motives and no labelling. It is our future that is at stake here.

[ta8ersalid]

02:04 PM on 02/05/2011

The Republicans: "They want to take money that isn't theirs."

Another attempt to take from the middle class and poor.

Without SS most people will have to work until death. The job market needs people to retire now, so jobs become available.

[wcoffey20]

05:30 PM on 02/02/2011

The only thing off the table is the truth about the deficits and labeling Social Security as an "Entitlement". When stockholders receive dividends,are these dividends considered an "Entitlement"? Social Security represents an investment made by millions of Americans in their futures and America's Future. It seems to be that the economic policy

[thereisonlyoneparty]

03:53 PM on 02/14/2011

It is not an investment.

I would refer you to a dictionary, but I am not sure that you would know where to find one.

Social security is a government run program that is paid for by tax contributions.  There is no investment.  Investments create a share of ownership.  If I invest in you or your business then I have a share of that business (according to the terms of the agreement) and am entitled to gains.

Social security is a tax.  I get nothing through my contributions.  And I get even less because I am planning to renounce my US citizenship eventually (I am going to sell my social security number and passport so someone with my identity will be paying into it and they will also get nothing for it.)  If this was an investment I would have a claim to something, but I do not.  Anything I paid in is gone.  The supreme court has already ruled that there is no claim to ownership with social security and that congress can change benefits at any time.

[Golemaximus]

02:36 AM on 02/02/2011

It's not off the table! Since the government refuses to increase taxes on millionaires and billionaires that have absolutely no employees working for them and are not creating jobs only greedily lording over have nots then their benefits become a target on the SS issue. Hard choices are going to be made and rich people benefits or entitlements are low hanging fruit on the - what do we cut first- list of options. If the Republicans had run a decent candidate against Reid in Nov he would be off the table! The mastermind of the Cornhusker kickback and Louisiana purchase has proclaimed SS off the table! BS!

[bornefree]

02:00 AM on 02/02/2011

What a farce. Paying into a program that will be obsolete before it's time to collect? There's a huge chunk of change coming out of my paycheck every week, for what?

[Australian2]

11:35 PM on 02/01/2011

Congratulations, Senator Reid. A few salient points for the Right:

1) Social Security is, under the current situation, fully-funded through FY2037, and 75% funded thereafter.
2) Social Security, by the law under which it operates, cannot simply appropriate from the Treasury - therefore, Socal Security cashflows (whether deficits or surpluses) are not part of the larger Budgetary picture. Therefore, cutting Social Security will do nothing to address the fiscal picture, while actively harming millions upon millions of American seniors.
3) The last time public-account retirement benefits were placed into Wall Street's hands, they got wiped out in 2008, while the wealthy who directed the investments made huge fortunes by betting against their own creations.
4) The simplest, easiest and most effective way of making sure that Social Security never goes broke is to eliminate the cap on payroll taxes. While I would prefer another means altogether of funding the program, simply making all earned income taxable would ensure Social Security's viability into the 2080s and beyond.

I suspect that a couple of these points would be surprises to the Senate Republicans.....or maybe not. They are, after all, well practiced at putting Party before Country.

[Cool Bam]

01:56 PM on 02/02/2011

Eliminating the cap will, by CBO estimates, extend the trust fund 6 years. I might me a start but it does not approach solving the problem.

[eddw88]

10:59 PM on 02/01/2011

Funding until 2037, with a 4/5 continuance for ten more years???

All this while under funding the program. Raise the SS tax limits to match income regardless of amount of income taken in.

Problem solved period.

[Cool Bam]

01:58 PM on 02/02/2011

Eliminating the cap will, by CBO estimates, extend the trust fund 6 years. It might me a start ,but saying problem solved is akin to Bush flying a "Victory" banner on a certain aircraft carrier. Bullpucky

[eddw88]

05:20 PM on 02/02/2011

Eliminating the cap will fund SS properly.

[jztherapist]

10:26 PM on 02/01/2011

I didn't like Senator Reid much before he was re-elected, but he is fast approaching Sen. Bernie Sanders as my new BFF hero. He's become much more assertive and outspokenly principled; I only wish he had been as strongly supportive of the Public Option.

[logicanada]

07:15 PM on 02/01/2011

Put Wall Street security ON the table.

[jaschrod]

05:59 PM on 02/01/2011

The people who want Social Security reduced, or eliminated, say that SS has a shortfall of 40 million dollars, but what they do not take in to consideration is, they do not count the 118 million in interest money owed to SS.

[DUSAA-1775]

06:55 PM on 02/01/2011

The people who say that SS is running a $45 billion deficit this year... That's billion...not million as you said...will continue to run deficits is the CBO.
As far as your other point...since there isn't anything but worthless IOU's in the SS lock box , I would say any 'interest due' is worthless also.

[eddw88]

10:55 PM on 02/01/2011

So then why did the republicans just vote to reduce the amount of money SS takes in if things are sooooo bad??

[FTracy3]

05:40 PM on 02/01/2011

Kick that can down the road.

[ElBruce]

05:43 PM on 02/01/2011

That can is doing just fine. It's not in any crisis, and doesn't need to be tinkered with. The people who say otherwise are just trying to get their hands in your wallet.

[Cool Bam]

02:01 PM on 02/02/2011

It's not in crisis so long as they add the 2 1/2 Trillion Trust fund and the Trillions short it falls before the pay as you go system straighten back up (after the boomers) to the budget deficit and actually budget for it.

[amaboss52]

04:56 PM on 02/01/2011

Social Security is not part of the deficit and until the gopers stop lying about that we will never see the end of them trying to steal it for their Wall Street buddies.

[jmpurser]

05:18 PM on 02/01/2011

No but it IS part of a big wad of money Wall Street wants to get it's hands on.  I'd have said that was impossible until Obama and the Democrats started playing games with it.  Now SS funds WILL have to come from General Funds which means it WILL be part of the deficit.

Both parties are attacking SS now.  Either we get third parties into power or we will watch SS fall.

[Iammadashell]

05:46 PM on 02/01/2011

What make you think a third any smarter than two party we now ? "It's the people" they don't understand their government, to busy watching TV. Just listen to crap that being broadcast everyday.

[Edward Standley]

04:30 PM on 02/01/2011

It's all about choices. If a legislator wants to not choose for the well-being of the elderly and the disabled, he/she can say so. If they say that there is no other place to cut, they are lying. If they tell you that the wealthy and corporations are providing an equitable share, again- they are lying.

[Blue Onyx]

04:14 PM on 02/01/2011

EARTH TO LIBERALS--YOU'RE BEING DUPED AGAIN!!!

Please view the video of Senator Bernie Sanders' new "Defending Social Security Caucus" by entering "Making Social Security Stronger" in the Google search engine. This video shows Senator Sanders and several other Senators vowing to fight "the privatization and dismantling of Social Security." No where in this video do they state that cutting social security is "off the table." As a matter of fact, in the last minute of the video, Senator Sanders states: "Should we address this problem and make sure that it (social security) is there for our kids and our grandchildren, and that social security is strong for the next seventy-five years? Absolutely! Absolutely!"

Liberals, progressives, moderates, conservatives--you'd better wake up!!! It is NOT just the Republican party that is determined to destroy social security as we know it. I suspect that much of this inside-the-beltway activity is just a distraction designed to prevent any serious mobilization efforts on the part of Democratic Party and/or progressive activists. I don't believe that submitting petitions, making phone calls, and sending e-mails will be sufficient to stop the well organized and well financed drive underway to destroy this vital insurance program. Protecting Social Security AS IT EXISTS TODAY will probably not happen unless the masses can be mobilized to peacefully rally in Washington to demand it.

Any serious thoughts regarding my comment would be appreciated.

[jmpurser]

05:19 PM on 02/01/2011

Liberals and progressives aren't confused about this.  Democrats are.  You're right that "both parties" are attacking SS now for no reason at all except the chance to hand the money over to Wall Street.

Either we get third parties into American politics or we watch SS die.

[Chris]

03:49 PM on 02/01/2011

Mr Reid what is your plan to fix SS? Per my last SS statement they can only gaurantee 76% of my promised payout. So please tell me hwo you plan to fix this. If you have no plan let me invest the same monies myself. I gaurantee to can make at least .77 per dollar I invest. Can you promise me the same?

[jmpurser]

03:55 PM on 02/01/2011

SS is not an investment plan.  It's insurance.  And SS statements don't claim they can only cover 77% of "promised payout".

We allowed defined benefit pensions to be converted to 401K so people could "manage their own" retirements.  The result was wiping out the retirement savings of a generation.  SS is still there and now it's the ONLY thing most Americans will retire upon.

Whatever you think of SS the record for the "market driven solution" is much, MUCH worse.