Amy Klobuchar on Social Security

DFL Sr Senator (MN)

No raising retirement age; no cost of living increase

Q: 60% of our federal revenues go to Medicare and pensions. Will you go after those?

KLOBUCHAR: I believe that if we can shore up this deficit and balance the budget, that we can then start shoring up Social Security. This Congress has raided $925 billion from Social Security. And you go back to the Clinton administration.

Q: Would you raise the retirement age?

KLOBUCHAR: I don’t believe that is the solution.

Q: Cost of living increase?

KLOBUCHAR: I don’t believe that’s the solution. If we can get that balanced budget in place, we’re going to be able to secure Social Security for the future [as we had under Clinton]

Q: With no changes in the system?

KLOBUCHAR: We can have a bipartisan commission look at those changes. They should be options to be looked at, but it would be a hard sell on me because I believe our priority should be to balance the budget. There is a better way to do this by being fiscally responsible instead of giving billions of dollars in oil giveaways.

Source: 2006 MN Senate debate, on Meet the Press , Oct 15, 2006

President’s privatization scheme puts us at risk

The Social Security system will be below the even point by 2042. We should raise the cap [on payment] from $90,000. The president’s privatization scheme would have cost more. The privatization scheme puts us at risk. People saw it for what it was -- it gives money to special interests, and it doesn’t solve the problem. Source: MN 2006 Senate debates - MPR interview , Jan 26, 2006

Raise cap from $90,000 for paying in

I’d like to see raising the cap as a potential solution. [Paying into Social Security] is currently capped out at $90,000. The Social Security system can be fixed. There’s some way you could do something with the wealthiest people. Source: MN 2006 Senate debates - MPR interview , Jan 26, 2006

Privatization is a risky scheme

I will fight and oppose the current administration’s risky scheme to privatize Social Security because it would turn the guarantee of a secure retirement into a gamble. The president’s irresponsible proposal would divert billions of dollars out of Social Security and put it at risk in the stock market. And it would require trillions of dollars of borrowing for transition costs. That’s no way to fix a system. Source: 2006 Senate campaign website, www.amyklobuchar.com, “Issues” , Jan 18, 2006

Make Social Security more secure for the long term

I will fight to make sure our nation plans ahead and works toward a bipartisan solution to make Social Security more secure for the long term. I’m confident that working together across party lines, we can responsibly address any projected funding shortfalls and ensure that Social Security remains a vital part of retirement for future generations. Source: 2006 Senate campaign website, www.amyklobuchar.com, “Issues” , Jan 18, 2006

Incentives for private retirement options

I will fight to expand incentives for Americans to participate more fully in private retirement options such as IRA and 401(k) accounts. These are essential supplements to the guarantee of Social Security, and I believe we can provide working families with stronger incentives to save for retirement. Source: 2006 Senate campaign website, www.amyklobuchar.com, “Issues” , Jan 18, 2006

Voted NO on establishing reserve funds & pre-funding for Social Security.

Voting YES would:

require that the Federal Old Age and Survivors Trust Fund be used only to finance retirement income of future beneficiaries;
ensure that there is no change to benefits for individuals born before January 1, 1951
provide participants with the benefits of savings and investment while permitting the pre-funding of at least some portion of future benefits; and
ensure that the funds made available to finance such legislation do not exceed the amounts estimated to be actuarially available.

Proponents recommend voting YES because:

Perhaps the worst example of wasteful spending is when we take the taxes people pay for Social Security and, instead of saving them, we spend them on other things. Even worse than spending Social Security on other things is we do not count it as debt when we talk about the deficit every year. So using the Social Security money is actually a way to hide even more wasteful spending without counting it as debt. This Amendment would change that.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

This amendment has a fatal flaw. It leaves the door open for private Social Security accounts by providing participants with the option of "pre-funding of at least some portion of future benefits."

Privatizing Social Security does nothing to extend the solvency of the program.
Transition costs would put our Nation in greater debt by as much as $4.9 trillion.
Creating private accounts would mean benefit cuts for retirees, by as much as 40%.
Half of all American workers today have no pension plan from their employers. It is critical that we protect this safety net.

Make no mistake about it, this is a stalking-horse for Social Security. It looks good on the surface, but this is an amendment to privatize Social Security. Reference: Bill S.Amdt.489 on S.Con.Res.21 ; vote number 2007-089 on Mar 22, 2007

Click here for definitions & background information on Social Security. Click here for a profile of Amy Klobuchar. Click here for SenateMatch quiz answers by Amy Klobuchar. Click here for AmericansElect quiz answers by Amy Klobuchar. Click here for a summary of Amy Klobuchar's positions on all issues. Click here for issue positions of other MN politicians.
*Other candidates on Social Security:*		*Amy Klobuchar on other issues:*
*MN Gubernatorial:* Mark Dayton *MN Senatorial:* Al Franken MN politicians *Retiring in 2014 election:* GA:Chambliss(R) IA:Harkin(D) MI:Levin(D) NE:Johanns(R) NJ:Lautenberg(D) SD:Johnson(D) WV:Rockefeller(D) *Senate Vacancies 2013:* HI:Inouye(Deceased) HI:Schatz(Appointed) MA:Kerry(Resigned) MA:Cowan(Appointed) SC:DeMint(Resigned) SC:Scott(Appointed) *Retired as of Jan. 2013:* AZ:Kyl(R) CT:Lieberman(D) HI:Akaka(D) ME:Snowe(R) ND:Conrad(D) NE:Nelson(D) NM:Bingaman(D) TX:Hutchison(R) VA:Webb(D) WI:Kohl(D)	*Senate elections Nov. 2012:* AZ:Flake(R) vs.Carmona(D) CA:Feinstein(D) vs.Emken(R) vs.Lightfoot(L) CT:McMahon(R) vs.Murphy(D) DE:Carper(D) vs.Wade(R) vs.Pires(I) FL:Nelson(D) vs.Mack(R) HI:Hirono(D) vs.Lingle(R) vs.~~Case~~(D) vs.~~Pirkowski~~(R) IN:~~Lugar~~(R) vs.Mourdock(R) vs.Donnelly(D) MA:Brown(R) vs.Warren(D) MD:Cardin(D) vs.Bongino(R) vs.Sobhani(I) ME:King(I) vs.Dill(D) vs.Summers(R) MI:Stabenow(D) vs.Hoekstra(R) vs.Boman(L) MN:Klobuchar(D) vs.Bills(R) MO:McCaskill(D) vs.Akin(R) MS:Wicker(R) vs.Gore(D) MT:Tester(D) vs.Rehberg(R)	ND:Heitkamp(D) vs.Berg(R) NE:Kerrey(D) vs.Fischer(R) NJ:Menendez(D) vs.Kyrillos(R) vs.Diakos(I) NM:Heinrich(D) vs.Wilson(R) NV:Heller(R) vs.Berkley(D) NY:Gillibrand(D) vs.Long(R) vs.Noren(I) vs.Clark(G) OH:Brown(D) vs.Mandel(R) PA:Casey(D) vs.Smith(R) RI:Whitehouse(D) vs.Hinckley(R) TN:Corker(R) vs.Clayton(D) TX:Cruz(R) vs.Sadler(D) vs.Roland(L) vs.~~Dewhurst~~(R) UT:Hatch(R) vs.Howell(D) VA:Kaine(D) vs.Allen(R) VT:Sanders(I) vs.MacGovern(R) WA:Cantwell(D) vs.Baumgartner(R) WI:Thompson(R) vs.Baldwin(D) WV:Manchin(D) vs.Raese(R) WY:Barrasso(R) vs.Chesnut(D)	Abortion Budget/Economy Civil Rights Corporations Crime Drugs Education Energy/Oil Environment Families Foreign Policy Free Trade Govt. Reform Gun Control Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Jobs Principles Social Security Tax Reform Technology War/Peace Welfare Other Senators Senate Votes (analysis) Bill Sponsorships Affiliations Policy Reports Group Ratings
Contact info: Email Contact Form Fax Number: 202-228-2186 Phone number: (202) 224-3244

Page last updated: Apr 21, 2013