Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I especially thank her for her leadership. Retirement security and saving Social Security is truly a critical issue in America. To me, this is much more than a simple congressional…
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I especially thank her for her leadership.
Retirement security and saving Social Security is truly a critical issue in America. To me, this is much more than a simple congressional debate; this is a debate that I take very personally. Mr. Speaker, my parents are in their seventies. Social Security is part of their retirement, a very important part of their retirement security, and not only as a United States Congressman, but as a son, I am committed to ensuring that they receive every single dollar that Social Security says that they will receive. I have a moral obligation to my parents, and I know everybody in Congress feels that same obligation.
But not only do I feel I have a moral obligation to my parents, I am also a father. I have a 3\1/2\-year-old daughter. I have a 22-month-old son. Social Security as we know it will not be there for them unless we act.
I can understand how different people in this body can have different solutions to the problems that we are facing in Social Security, but I cannot believe those who would simply deny the existence of the problem.
Mr. Speaker, I guess the challenge is, because too often in this town we are looking to the next election and we are not looking to the next generation. I guess there is some good news, and we are talking about it tonight. Social Security is still running a surplus today. That is good news. Those who are on Social Security, those who will soon be on Social Security, they are going to be in fine shape, Mr. Speaker. But it is those future generations, it is for everybody in America who may have that 3\1/2\-year-old daughter, that 22-month-old son, for whom we have to do something.
Now, as much as we would like in Congress to repeal the laws of demographics, we simply cannot do it. We cannot deny the fact that when Social Security was first created, you had almost 50 workers paying into the system for every one person taking out of the system. Now, Mr. Speaker, we are down to only 3 and a third workers, 3 and a third workers paying into a system for every one that is taking out. Very soon, we are going to be down to 2 workers paying into the system for every one.
Another demographic trend that we cannot outlaw, it is great for seniors, not too good for Social Security, is the average life span in America is increasing. When Social Security was first created, the average life span of an American was 60 years of age. I mean, their name was called on the roll up yonder before they ever saw one penny of their retirement. That is what many Americans faced. Well, thanks to the marvels of modern medicine, which my colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Dr. Gingrey) knows a lot about, the average life span of an American today is 77 years of age.
So we have more and more retirees, we have fewer and fewer workers, and those retirees are living longer and longer and longer, and the system simply cannot handle that. I mean, right now the cost of doing nothing is tremendous. We are looking right now at a shortfall in Social Security of $10.4 trillion.
Now, I am not sure if anybody in America can really conceptualize or grasp this figure of $10.4 trillion, trillion with a T. But I did a little math and what that means, Mr. Speaker, is if we wanted to try to solve the problem of Social Security for future generations and solve it today, every American would have to write a check out for $34,000; a family of four over $125,000, to try to solve the problem today.
Now, what happens if we do nothing? And unfortunately, many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are part of the school of thought that we should do nothing. Well, if you look very closely at what the Social Security law says today, what current law says, what it really says is that my children are going to face an automatic benefit cut of probably over a third. Now, when I go to town hall meetings in my congressional district back in Texas and ask how many people are on Social Security and maybe half of them raise their hands, I ask, how many of you would be willing to take a third cut of our Social Security benefits? Not one hand goes up. And then I ask, well, how about your grandchildren? Do you mind if they have their benefits cut by a third? Not a single hand goes up.
Current law says, when the trust fund is exhausted, there will be an automatic benefit cut, and it can approach one-third. Mr. Speaker, that is just not fair. I mean, this is an issue of generational fairness.
I would love for us to solve the problem of Social Security tonight. Every day we put it off, it is costing the American people an extra $200 million. We are kicking that can down the road, because too many people are looking at that next election and not the next generation. So as much as I would like to solve the problem tonight, I know perhaps that is not realistic.
But surely, Mr. Speaker, surely we can agree that the trust funds in Social Security ought to be dedicated to Social Security. But that is not the case. Forty-nine different times Congress has taken that money, and they spend it for something else.
Now, sometimes they spend it for really good things. They spend it on Kevlar vests for our troops in Iraq. Maybe they spend it to help guarantee a student loan. Maybe they help a low-income person get into their first home.
But more often than not, they also spend it on wheelchairs for Medicare that cost five times as much as those in the VA. They spend it on $800,000 outhouses in Iowa, and the toilet does not even flush. They spend it on studies of how and why college students decorate their dorm, and the list goes on and on and on.
There is a spending problem in Washington, D.C., Mr. Speaker, and we need to make sure that the Social Security trust funds are solely dedicated to Social Security. And so, fortunately, a number of our colleagues came up with an idea.
They call them GROW accounts, and it is a very, very simple idea. It says, take the remaining Social Security surpluses, and we think maybe we have about 12 years left before Social Security begins to go bankrupt. If the tidal wave of red ink only gets larger and larger and larger, let us at least save the surpluses we have and let us get it out of Washington because Washington has been taking that money and spending it on something else.
Let us get it into your account, an account with your name on it, something that you own. And, Mr. Speaker, a lot of people in America do not realize that they do not own their own Social Security. Several Supreme Court cases have ruled you do not own your own Social Security. So this is a very simple idea. Surely, we in Congress can at least agree on this one small baby step, to try to keep the security in Social Security. Let us take these remaining surpluses, let us put them into an account that you own, that Congress cannot spend, that bureaucrats cannot take away. You own it, something that you can leave to your family. Put it in a very safe investment, put it into a T-Bill.
Now, I do not know how anybody, Mr. Speaker, can call this a risky proposition, but they do. Let me tell you what is really risky. What is really risky is Americans leaving their retirement security here in Washington, D.C. when the trust fund has been raided 49 different times.
Mr. Speaker, there have been 20 different tax increases on Social Security, 20 different tax increases. And every time that the taxes are increased, your rate of return goes down. And that is important because we are losing the security out of Social Security.
Now, my grandparents, who are deceased, who were born about 1900, they got about a 12 percent rate of return on their Social Security. That was a great rate of return. My parents, who I alluded to earlier this evening, they were born in roughly 1930. They are getting about a 4\1/2\ percent rate of return on their Social Security, and that is not bad. My generation, represented by those born roughly 1960, we are going to get about 2\1/2\ percent rate of return on our Social Security. That is barely keeping pace with inflation. And my children, my children, my 3\1/2\-year-old daughter, my 22-month-old son, Mr. Speaker, they are going to get a negative rate of return. They are going to put more money into Social Security than they take out.
Mr. Speaker, that is not fair. That is where the risk is. The risk is doing nothing. The risk is leaving our Social Security here. There have been multiple benefit cuts in Social Security. We cannot have the trust fund raided. The tax increases, the benefit cuts, the declining rates of return, the no ownership rights. Surely we can agree on this modest step forward of setting up these GROW accounts so that Americans can count on that Social Security so the trust fund cannot be raided and we can have personal accounts with your name on it. And, Mr. Speaker, that would be one positive step that we could take in this body to help save Social Security for future generations.