Sen. Mark Warner: 'Gang Of Six' Looking At Social Security Changes, Not Raising Tax Rates

WASHINGTON -- The bipartisan "gang of six" may recommend changes to Social Security as part of its deficit-reduction plan, even though some Democrats have insisted such a proposal would be a non-starter.

"You know, part of this is just math -- 16 workers for every one retiree 50 years ago, three workers for every retiree now," Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), a member of the group, told CBS "Face the Nation" host Bob Schieffer on Sunday.

Warner credited House Budget Committee Chair Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) for producing a "serious" budget plan but criticized him for not proposing any way to raise revenues while transferring "more responsibility onto our seniors in terms of paying for health care."

"What we're doing is we're saying everything has to be on the table," he said. "Entitlement reform, dramatic spending cuts, looking at tax reform." While Ryan's plan primarily talks about lowering tax rates, Warner said the gang of six is also looking at raising revenue by eliminating some of the tax expenditures.

While getting rid of such deductions may be considered an increase in taxes, Warner said the group will not propose actually raising tax rates:

WARNER: Bob, I think you've got to look at both sides of the ledger. Long before I was in politics, I spent 20 years in business. I built companies. And you've got to look at the revenue side. You've got to look at the spending side.

We're looking at a ratio of about $3 in cuts for every additional dollar in revenues. And the revenues we're talking about literally are coming from lower rates, where we can lower our rates on individual and on corporate rates back to where they're much more competitive on a worldwide basis. But we're getting rid of a number of the tax expenditures.

I mean, a fact that I'm not sure most Americans realize -- we collect about $1 trillion a year in income taxes, yet we have $1.2 trillion a year in income tax expenditures, deductions, many of them that are popular, charitable deduction, home mortgage deduction. If we would cut back on some of those, we could actually lower rates and still increase revenues.

SCHIEFFER: So that's where you would get the additional revenues, by eliminating deductions, not necessarily by raising taxes?

WARNER: We're not talking about raising taxes.

According to The Hill, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) has insisted Social Security reform be part of the gang of six plan, while Democratic negotiators in the group, including Sens. Kent Conrad (N.D.) and Dick Durbin (Ill.), have said it should be handled separately.

A budget deal with changes to Social Security may face intense resistance from Democrats. Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) suggested on CNN's "State of the Union Sunday that his party won't support Social Security reform as part of a debt-reduction plan.

"I know debt limits frequently have things attached. I understand that," he said. "But I have to tell you, if they wind up holding up things like Medicare, Social Security, these bedrock programs that help people in need, help form the safety net in our country, it is a non-starter, Democrats won't vote for it."

Comments

[rjr1]

01:45 PM on 05/03/2011

PERSPECTIVE ON SOCIAL SECURITY: Social security really amounts to a compulsory savings program of OUR money from OUR paychecks for OUR retirement. Unfortunately, instead of keeping these funds safeguarded, collecting interest our politicians have put the entire ss surplus into the general fund and spent it (they stole it!).Now that there is more money going out to retirees and less dollars coming indue to the economy (fewer payroles, therefore less ss payrole taxes) this ponzi scheme is collapsing faster than a Madoff scam and that is why our politicians are in a hurry to slash (reform) ss because now they would have to borrow the funds and pay interest onthe new debt as well. GET IT?

[SisterAnn]

08:29 AM on 05/20/2011

As they pay Social Security back, they will continue paying interest on it. The Social Security surplus/ trust funds are in US Treasury Bills and so we will get interest on them. I read that at this time, they are issuing new US Treasury Bills for the interest, too.

[rjr1]

01:39 PM on 05/03/2011

There is a screen play being performed for us. It involves many actors. Act 1: The president handpicks members for a deficit commission so they would (surprise, surprise) come to his desired conclusions of course. This way he can introduce us to his (and other's) concept of our future without seeming to be the author of it (slick and slimy). Act 2: Create an "emergency crisis" situation , (we have seen this before and it has given us bank bailouts, trillion dollar democratic pork "job stimulus" bill etc..) ergo the threat of a government shutdown. Remember congress recently passed an extension to the ruinous Bush tax cuts for the filthy rich and not one of them threatened a government shutdown when that passed. Hmmm?
Do not be tricked! They are only interested inlooking in our direction when discussing neccessary "sacrifices" that need to be made. Act 3: Now remember any good screen fiction needs antagonists to work (somewhat like good cop, bad cop). We now add Ryan, the gang(sters) of six democrats, and some republicans to the mix. Are the democrats and republicans really foes, or in many instances, just co-conspirators? Obama will "reluctantly " give into most of the demands of the "opposition", count on it! A deal behind closed doors has already been made, no transparency here! You will have to wait for the final act, coming soon.....

[samNH]

05:17 PM on 04/25/2011

Not much has been written about the attack on Medicaid, but when a senior citizen has exhausted all his assets and require nursing home care today, it is Medicaid that pays for that. What will happen to the millions of seniors who may exhaust their assets before they die and there is no Medicaid?

[rbourgeau]

10:55 AM on 04/21/2011

NO CUTS! RAISE TAXES 50% on wealthy. raise SS tax on entire iuncome. increase medicare. the deficit is a direct result of a revenue problem. the 98% majority has shared all the pain. the top 2% have shared all the gain. you cannot justify cutting programs for the poor or those who are barely making it? how can you justify medicine or an operation to a child? how can you justify taking food out of the mouths of these children.
It's not deficit it's your fear of raising revenue!

[Stephen-in-Seattle]

11:35 AM on 04/20/2011

Every paycheck I've ever gotten, the government has *required* me to pay medicare taxes. The government has also required my employer to contribute an equal amount to medicare to medicare. This is NOT an entitlement program paid for out of the general tax fund. This is a retirement insurance program that is run by the federal government, funded by every single wage earner in the country. I think I have every right to enjoy the benefits of medicare, after a lifetime of contributions, when I reach retirement age. The same is true of social security retirement income. Every paycheck, big chunks of my money go to Medicare/medicaid/social security. Now the government can't afford it? We can afford to spend $75M an hour on the war machine. The ware machine isn't even considered during these discussions.

[Dana1982]

04:58 PM on 04/20/2011

Actually you have no right to any money you put into Social Security. The money isn't yours and if the rules change there's nothing you can do. See Supreme Court case Flemming v. Nestor (1960).

[Stephen-in-Seattle]

12:19 PM on 04/21/2011

I'll check it out, thanks for the information!

[SisterAnn]

09:03 AM on 05/20/2011

Dana1982,

Don't start down that road. I have read before that we have no right to our homes, lands or bank accounts because the government can take it back.

There are things that are legal but are so unethical that it will never be done.

Capitalism is based on ownership and being able to trust what the government has us to do. Take that away and we fall.

Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603 (1960), is a Supreme Court Case in which the Court upheld the Constitutionality of Section 1104 of the 1935 Social Security Act.

Nestor, an alien, became eligible for Social Security payments in 1955. In July 1956 he was deported for having been a member of the Communist Party from 1933 to 1939. Section 202(n) of the Social Security Act provided for the termination of Social Security payments when an alien is deported for being a member of the Communist Party.

The case was about a communist who had been expelled from this country and wanted to draw his Social Security. They were prejudiced against a communist.
At that time communism was hated and was the reason he couldn't get his check.

[LSP]

07:50 PM on 04/19/2011

Cenk Uygur just commented that the United States government has been "borrowing" the Social Security money that every one of us working people ended up getting taken out of every paycheck from every job we've ever worked.

There was a surplus. But over the years the government used that money to fund wars and probably tax cuts for the rich. Now they're looking for a way to get out of paying it back.

That money belongs to the people who worked for it. And we should demand that the government pay back what they borrowed and leave the Social Security plan alone.

Weren't we promised we could count on retiring at age 62? Now it's 67. And they want to make it 70! My parents lived to be 73 and 74 and there's a chance I may not live much longer either. That would give me a whole 3 or 4 years to "enjoy" my retirement.

We have to stand strong on this. No more changes. Because if we allow the government to change it again, they'll continue to whittle away at it little by little, until they finally make the program practically useless.

[LSP]

10:34 PM on 04/19/2011

You can retire at 62. But from then on you'd only get 75% of the benefits you'd receive if you waited until age 66 to retire. Sixty-six is now considered full retirement age (not 67 as I stated above).

Now we may have to wait until age 70 to get the full benefits that many of us counted on originally getting at 62. And soon after that it'll be 72. The government knows that the longer they make seniors wait to qualify for the full benefit they've earned, the less likely it is they'll be around very long to receive it. That is shameful.

[samNH]

05:13 PM on 04/25/2011

As shameful is converting Medicare into a for profit insurance voucher system. Why should anyone make a profit off the pain and suffering of others.

[klinzboy]

07:50 PM on 04/19/2011

Leaving the budget deficit in the hands of this particular six makes as much sense as putting the dynamic duo, Grassley and Baucus, in charge of health care reform. Good bye Social Security, hello health insurance company profiteering.

[indjoe]

07:20 PM on 04/19/2011

This is pure bull The Social Security has a Surplus that
the politicians are just trying too steal and it is up too all of
us too say no. Democrats or Republicans no we do not need too
raise the age or have mean test social security it's not part of
the debt or deficit problem . this is just pure theft on a grand scale
and we can stop it call write and raise hell. Just say hell no we
are not going too let you pay for your wars and tax cuts with our
retirement insurance. Stand up for America stop it say no stop
lying and stealing our retirement.

[vikingway2deal]

12:21 PM on 04/19/2011

Senator Mark Warner sounds more like a Republican than Democrat. Democrats
should be helping to preserve Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. These social programs help millions of American citizens. Senior citizens have paid money to
Social Security and Medicare all the years they were employed. It would be immoral and stealing from American Citizens to end these programs that are the backbone of what is left if the American social safety net.

[James Shrum]

02:23 PM on 04/19/2011

if this guy goes after SS I hope that all the Seniors in his district gos after him . he is a man that has got no passion at all . we seniors have to have SS to get by and this guy wants to cut SS and not do away with the BUSH tax cuts whch has not worked anyway . the rich have had the tax money ever sence 2001 and look at the jobs it has created Bush says to give the middle class a tax braek does not work well how in the heck does the GOP no we have not ever had one that was large to make a defference . 5 or ten dollars a week is not

[LSP]

07:54 PM on 04/19/2011

I'm very disappointed in Mark Warner and the rest of the Democrats. The government took from our Social Security money and they need to pay back every cent of it.

[rebelriser]

11:53 AM on 04/19/2011

Adding to what I said about the Defense Industry, Bush & Cheney screwed it up so badly and shoved any audit so far into the future that there is NO system or plan of action for auditing the Defense Budget to try to learn how it is being spent. Listen to authentic news instead of FOX & Limbaugh, and you will learn these tidbits of reality.

[rebelriser]

11:43 AM on 04/19/2011

GREED is the evil in play here. Those who take the largest amounts of whatever you choose to call it, whether "payoff" or campaign funding, are likely the people who want to reward corporations by excusing them from paying taxes.

Some need to listen to real news & information media instead of FOX & Limbaugh and get yourselves "fed up" for the right reasons. Do you know that there is no accountability as to how our defense money is being spent? How can anyone claim that this Administration is spending too much of a certain amount of money when the Bush Administration & Cheney spent "willy nilly" with no records of how it was spent on their two wars? Now we have NO records and no audit system of how defense money is being spent, and worse yet, the Bush people shoved the date way ahead to some future time when an audit can be done regarding defense spending. THIS is what happens when voter fraud and a Conservative Supreme Court selects a President regardless of popular vote and refusing to let all voter ballots be counted. Be super alert for future shenanigans when anyone takes an office and you know something is wrong with methods at polls & and with proper vote count.

[aprilglaspie]

11:05 AM on 04/19/2011

Why is Durbin associating with these idiots?

[aprilglaspie]

11:04 AM on 04/19/2011

This is purely bogus. Social Security has zero zip nada to do with the deficit. Simplest SS fix. Raise the income cap from the absurd $106,800. Deficit? Make hedge fund managers and General Electric pay taxes.

[dtairtime]

11:47 AM on 04/19/2011

SS has a lot to do with the deficit. At least the way it currently works. It may be a seperate fund but it still has to be paid and if we have to pay the people collecting SS it means we have to have the cash to pay them.

An easier solution to the long term solvency of SS is to remove the millions of people collecting SS checks who not only never paid a cent into the system. Those hedge fund managers all have wives who never worked, yet likely get the max every year while working wives more often then not get far less. Those "real housewives" on TV will all collect SS even though they never paid a cent into it. Most people aren't aware the husband does not take less for this little goodie either.

[terjac]

12:34 PM on 04/19/2011

One of the biggest problems with SS is that changes have been made in regard to the benefits, however, they did not change the way it was initially written. It was not set up for people to retire at 62. It was not set up for people that never paid into it to get benefits (sorry to repeat what you said), it was not set up for someone like Obama's aunt and Octomom's kids, it was not set up for someone to get SSDI on phony illnesses, because they are drug addicts, or drunks

[James Shrum]

02:30 PM on 04/19/2011

the money is in the SS trust fund not the general fund when the Prasident ask for money to run the government he ask for the money from income taxes trun the regular government operations. then he ask for the SS which is in a seperats account from the everday operationsand he gets what he needs to pay out to the people who receive SS or medicare which some of medicare comes out of ss

[Scent]

10:29 AM on 04/19/2011

Social security has been attacked for more than a century. Every politician who fights social security works against the good of the people. - You know - the ones he swore to serve.

You know what the law calls someone who does that?

Traitor.

[Dana1982]

11:40 AM on 04/19/2011

Social security is hardly good for everyone. Ponzi schemes like this need people to die off before they can collect, and the more that do the better it is for the system.

[Scent]

12:18 PM on 04/19/2011

When the people help one another humans call that humane, decent, and good. Only profiteers who profit from letting them die call that a ponzi scheme.

The healthiest, the ones with least mortality in children, the ones with highest age average, the ones with most happiness and best education are the "socialist" nations. Those where the government does what its job is: to serve the people and protect them from crimianls and parasites.

And guess what? - They also have the least people out of work. Aint't that a coincidence? ;o)

[James Shrum]

02:37 PM on 04/19/2011

SS has not been in existence for a century . it has been existence ever sence 1935. but the GOP has been trying to destroy it ever sence that time which is about 76 years. they have been trying to destroy medicare every sence 1965 46 years . destroys anything for the middle class or the poor . as for a traitor it don't matter 1 year or a 100 years it is still the same .

[fisher65]

10:18 AM on 04/19/2011

and another thing , IS THIS ONE OF THOSE PYRAMID SCHEMES?