Question: Why did Dems filibuster the Social Security "Lock Box" in 1999 ?

[yodermon]

"Social Security and Medicare Safe Deposit Box Act of 1999"

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00170

found this reference while perusing this:
http://www.justfacts.com/socialsecurity.asp#<183>

ty

[Better Today]

1. Unrec'ing for brevity, not topic.

[toddwv]

12. I found this tidbit of information

I don't think that it completely answers the questions but it supports previous responses to creating a SS "lockbox":


http://www.justfacts.com/news.impactSS.asp

What is referred to as "putting Social Security into a lockbox" has no effect on Social Security

"I will put Social Security into a lockbox." This is one of the most common campaign promises. What does it mean? It means that Social Security loans its surplus money to the federal government, and the federal government uses the money to pay off someone else it owes money to.

Examine this scenario from Social Security's standpoint. Social Security loans money to the federal government and will collect on the money and interest in the future. As far as Social Security is concerned, this is no different than what happens during the so-called "raiding the Trust Fund" scenario. Now look at this from the federal government's standpoint. The federal government borrows money from Social Security and uses it to pay off debt that it owes to someone else. This leaves the national debt exactly as it was. It's like using one credit card to pay off another.<38>

Although the effect on Social Security and the national debt is neutral, it would be great if this always happened, because the alternative is that the federal government borrows the money from Social Security and spends it, which increases the national debt. In 1999, Republican Congressman Wally Herger sponsored a "lockbox" bill in the House of Representatives. This law would have restricted Congress from using money borrowed from the Social Security program to spend on other government programs. It passed the House by a vote of 416 to 12.<39> In the Senate, Republicans attempted to bring this bill up for a vote. To do this, 3/5 of the Senators must agree to do so. The motion to bring this bill up for a vote failed. 100% of Republicans voted for it. 100% of Democrats voted against it.<40>

Again, the key point to realize is that there is no effect on Social Security. Also, in this instance, there is no effect on the national debt.

[toddwv]

14. Couple more:

http://www.virginiainstitute.org/viewpoint/_vvwagner.html
http://www.optimist123.com/optimist/2005/07/the_social_secu.html
http://blogs.mccombs.utexas.edu/mccombs-today/2010/07/sandy-leeds-in-the-statesman-the-social-security-lockbox-myth/

Always be wary of right-wingers bearing gifts like "securing Social Security for future generations". Their stated agenda is to "starve the beast" and kill all social spending.

[fascisthunter]

2. I Would Like an Answer to that Question Too

[mzmolly]

11. See Warren Stupidity's post below.

:hi:

[suston96]

3. Any discussion about Social Security should be rec'd....

Rather than a lock box I would have preferred a separate published accounting of what SS and Medicare collected from employers and employees and what was turned over to the general treasury - the US Treasury checking account.

This accounting is available from the SS.gov site but who can expect the public to bother with that.

Those SS and Medicare funds, and the interest their investments earn, are used by the US Treasury to pay ALL US government bills, including SS checks and Medicare payouts, on a daily basis.

So it looks like SS and Medicare are the big hogs feasting on the government treasury.

Knowledge is a beautiful thing. Ignoring it is fatal!

[BeFree]

5. Truth is

The rest of government is feasting on the largess of the working folks savings.

Whatever was socked away for SS has been spent on the defense budget now at about 1 Trillion dollars a year. Kiss your SS savings goodbye, the DoD got to it first.

[suston96]

15. Don't kiss anything goodbye.....

Read what I wrote about that universal checkbook the government uses.

All cash collected and received by the US government, including SS and Medicare taxes, go into that checkbook. Same checkbook is used by the Treasurer of the United States to pay all bills that are due and payable to the nations' creditors., including SS and Medicare payouts.

It does indeed look like the Treasury is spending our SS and Medicare cash - but the Treasury owes us and those who become eligible whatever we have coming as current or future recipients.

Something about "the full faith and credit of the United States" that will back up that 20 dollar bill in your pocket and the solemn promises paid to SS and Medicare enrollees, and US retired military, and US retired civil service, and all the rest who served faithfully with full faith and trust in the integrity of the promises made to them during their service by their government.

No goodbyes.....fight for what is yours.

[Warren Stupidity]

4. because it had basically nothing to do with protecting social security?

This was a 'balanced budget enforcement' law that would, as usual, end up enforcing only expenditures on non-military budget items. The Republicans thought up the clever idea of Opposite Day legislative naming initiatives. Call everything the 'Protecting Mom's and Apple Pie Act' and then portray opponents as against motherhood, and apple pie.

[mzmolly]

10. Exactly.

:hi:

[girl gone mad]

6. It was a dumb idea.

The notion of storing up something we can literally create out of thin, air any time we want, is silly.

[David__77]

7. Well I'd probably have to oppose it as well.

Social Security is a fixed benefits obligation of the federal government, not a collective savings account. Even if we abolished payroll taxes, Social Security need not go away, which is precisely why I object to speaking of a "bankruptcy" in Social Security.

[Winterblues]

8. While I am personally in favor of locking up SS so it can not be stolen for General funds.

It should be used ONLY for Social Security and nothing else.. this however was nothing more than a balanced budget trick that included much more than just Social Security and should have been filibustered.. Gore ran on creating a "Lock Box" for Social Security and Republicans belittled him over it which shows how serious they were at the time Democrats filibustered..

[mzmolly]

9. Why do some bring misleading Republican talking points

here? http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2610399/posts

More on the bill below. I think the name of the act was misleading, to say the least.

http://www.ssa.gov/legislation/legis_bulletin_052899.html

"Would allocate all Social Security surpluses towards saving Social Security and Medicare by using such surpluses to reduce debt held by the public until Social Security and Medicare reform is enacted."

Doesn't sound like this bill had much to do with actually protecting SS and Medicare.

[yodermon]

18. thanks

i was relying on "Justfacts.com" to actually relay facts.

your link to ssa.gov gave a good summary, especially the 2nd bullet

Would provide that it is not in order in the House or Senate to consider concurrent resolutions on the budget or any other legislation that would set forth an on-budget deficit for any fiscal year. This "point of order" provision would not apply to Social Security reform legislation or Medicare reform legislation as defined in this bill.

ie, stealth balanced-budget legislation, which isn't really advertised in the naming of the bill (or your freeper link ;)
do I have that right?

[mzmolly]

21. I think it's a stealth rob the SS/MC fund until it is "reformed to our liking" and call it a lock

box. I believe there was an effort at privatization in the bill as well, which makes the name especially absurd. ;)

[Hannah Bell]

13. did you read the bill?

[yodermon]

17. no, I posted before reading the full bill.

I'm trying to understand it right now.

My OP was wholly motivated by the following points from the following URL:
http://www.justfacts.com/socialsecurity.asp#<183>

* In 1999, Republican Congressman Wally Herger sponsored a "lockbox" bill in the House of Representatives. This law would have restricted Congress from using money borrowed from the Social Security program to spend on other government programs. It passed the House by a vote of 416 to 12.<180>

* Senate rules allow for a "filibuster," in which certain votes can be blocked unless 60 of the Senate's 100 members agree to let it take place.<181> <182> In the Senate, Republicans attempted to bring this bill up for a vote and it was blocked by a filibuster conducted by Democrats.<183>

It appears that this site (justfacts.com) was not giving the whole picture of what that bill contained (ie a stealth balanced-budget bill)

[sinkingfeeling]

16. The summary of this provides the answer. It would have made anything other than SS or Medicare

'reform' that added to the budget deficit 'out of order' or unpassable. Or such point of order could be overwritten by a 3/5ths vote.




Makes it out of order in the House or the Senate to consider any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report if the enactment of the reported bill or resolution, the adoption and enactment of an amendment, or the enactment of a bill or resolution in the form recommended in the conference report would cause or increase an on-budget deficit for any fiscal year. Makes such point of order inapplicable to social security or Medicare reform legislation (defined as legislation enacted into law that specifies that it is reform legislation for purposes of this Act).

Authorizes a waiver or suspension in the Senate of points of order under this Act only with a three-fifths majority. Requires the same majority to sustain an appeal on a ruling on such points of order.

[yodermon]

19. Sorry everyone, looks like "justfacts.com" is a pro-SS-privitization site.

http://www.justfacts.com/news.impactSS.asp

Privatization would prevent politicians from using Social Security as a smokescreen to run up debt behind the backs of the American people.

Social Security in its current form is a tool that politicians can use to drive our country into debt without the public knowing about it. Between 2001 and 2010, the Social Security program is projected to collect 5,502 billion dollars in taxes and spend 4,726 billion dollars on benefits and administrative overhead. This leaves $776 billion in surpluses.<59> If things remain as they are, the law requires that all of this money be loaned to the federal government.<60> Once this money is in the hands of the federal government, it is up for grabs.<61>

Privatization would put Social Security surpluses into the accounts of individual citizens. :eyes: This money would be their personal property that no one could touch (including the individuals who own it) until they are eligible to receive Social Security benefits. The concept is simple: Get the money out of the reach of politicians. If they don't have it, there is no way they can spend it or take advantage of a confusing situation to make people believe that they are saving it.

Apologies for propagating this stuff in my OP.

[mzmolly]

20. No problem. it's better to ask questions

than to assume something is true, that isn't. :hi:

[fascisthunter]

22. ahhhh.... thanks