What's New

Committee Schedule

Prints and Publications

Rules and Jurisdiction

Legislative Resources

Search the
Committee's site

Committee Membership

Committee News Releases

Chairmen's Portraits Page

FULL COMMITTEE

Tax Issues Only

SUBCOMMITTEES:

Trade

Oversight

Health

Social Security

Human Resources

Select Revenue Measures

Privacy, Copyright, and Permission to Link Statement

Committee on Ways and Means
 Subcommittee on Social Security

For Immediate Release
Contact: Press Office 202-225-8933
October 9, 2002

WASHINGTON -- Efforts to pressure Members of Congress to sign a pledge not to “privatize” Social Security are clearly just another form of Democrats’ scare tactics, since neither the President’s Commission’s options or any Republican legislation would “privatize” the program.

“Here we go again, Democrats are pushing the same old line on Social Security. Serious legislators should put aside political ploys and instead put forth their plan to strengthen Social Security,” said Ways and Means Social Security Subcommittee Chairman, Rep. E. Clay Shaw.

“The Democrats’ pledge-but-no-plan approach is irresponsible and would leave only a legacy of debt and broken promises to our kids and grandkids- we can and must do better than that,” Shaw added.

Consequences of the Democrats’ “no-plan” approach include:

•  Payroll taxes for an average earner (earning about $35,000 in 2002) would soar from about $4,300/year to about $6,600/year (over 50% increase), far too high a burden for our children and grandchildren;
  
• Or, promised retirement benefits of 23-year olds would be cut by over 1/4, and their children would face benefit cuts of 1/3;
  
• Or, national debt would balloon by $270 billion in 2041, $4.4 trillion in 2050 and $33 trillion in 2076.
  
• We would not be able to improve benefits for women, even though women are disproportionately dependent on Social Security for retirement income and more likely than men to suffer poverty in old age, especially widowed, divorced, and never-married women.
  
• We would not be able to help African-Americans and Hispanic Americans to build wealth they could pass on to their heirs, even though they have less savings and pension coverage than average. African-American households own only $3,060 in financial assets and Hispanics households own only $1,200. In contrast the median U.S. household owned $17,400 of financial assets
  
• Workers would be denied the opportunity to choose ownership and control of personal accounts, which would back Social Security benefits with real assets instead of IOUs, which could be passed to heirs, and which no politician could take away.