Robert Menendez on Social Security
Democratic Jr Senator; previously Representative (NJ-13)
|Using Social Security taxes for private accounts|
|Tom Kean, Jr.||Opposes|
A: I believe that the sacrifice, dedication and hard work of America’s “greatest generation” set an example for all generations that followed. As such, I believe that we should honor our parents by making sure they have the opportunity to retire with dignity, prosperity, and security. I hold true to my belief that Social Security is a sacred compact with both today’s seniors and tomorrow’s retirees. And, I am proud to have been at the forefront of the fight to stop President Bush’s scheme to privatize Social Security. Today, I am standing up to protect the pensions of hard-working New Jerseyans, and I am creating new incentives to encourage retirement savings.
KEAN: I oppose privatizing Social Security. Unlike my opponent, I also oppose raising Social Security taxes on seniors and giving Social Security benefits to illegal aliens.
MENENDEZ: No, I strongly oppose privatizing Social Security. Unlike Tom Kean Jr., I’ve consistently fought President Bush’s privatization scheme. We must protect benefits, not cut them.
MENENDEZ: Tom Kean Jr. cannot erase his record when it comes to privatizing Social Security. On three separate instances he took the Bush position in favor of privatization. In 2000, my opponent said that he backed Bush’s scheme to privatize social security. In the state legislature, Tom Kean Jr. voted to support Bush’s plan to privatize Social Security. Twice. Pres. Bush is again rallying his troops--including Tom Kean Jr.--to create private accounts & dip into the Social Security Trust Fund.
KEAN: In 1999, when Bill Clinton proposed investing Social Security in risky privatization scheme, Bob Menendez said, “by investing today, we can be sure Social Security... will be there tomorrow.” Now he says he’s against it. Make no mistake, Bob Menendez is ready to privatize Social Security if it is what the political party bosses tell him to do.
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."
To reject proposals to partially or completely substitute private saving accounts for the lifelong, guaranteed, inflation-protected insurance benefits provided through Social Security. The Congress finds the following:
The mission of the Alliance for Retired Americans is to ensure social and economic justice and full civil rights for all citizens so that they may enjoy lives of dignity, personal and family fulfillment and security. The Alliance believes that all older and retired persons have a responsibility to strive to create a society that incorporates these goals and rights and that retirement provides them with opportunities to pursue new and expanded activities with their unions, civic organizations and their communities.
The following ratings are based on the votes the organization considered most important; the numbers reflect the percentage of time the representative voted the organization's preferred position.
|Other candidates on Social Security:||Robert Menendez on other issues:|
Retiring in 2014 election:
Retired as of Jan. 2013:
Senate Vacancies 2013:
MA:Gabriel Gomez(R,lost special election)
Senate races Nov. 2014:
AK:Sessions(R) vs.(none yet)
AR:Pryor(D) vs.(none yet)
CO:Udall(D) vs.(none yet)
DE:Coons(D) vs.(none yet)
GA:Gingrey(R) vs.Handel(R) vs.Broun(R) vs.Kingston(R)
ID:Risch(R) vs.(none yet)
IL:Durbin(D) vs.(none yet)
KS:Roberts(R) vs.(none yet)
KY:McConnell(R) vs.(none yet)
ME:Collins(R) vs.(none yet)
MN:Franken(D) vs.a href='Jim_Abeler_Social_Security.htm'>Abeler(R)
MS:Cochran(R) vs.(none yet)
NH:Shaheen(D) vs.(none yet)
NM:Udall(D) vs.(none yet)
OK:Inhofe(R) vs.(none yet)
OR:Merkley(D) vs.(none yet)
RI:Reed(D) vs.(none yet)
SC-2:Scott(R) vs.(none yet)
SC-6:Graham(R) vs.a href='Jay_Stamper_Social_Security.htm'>Stamper(D)
TN:Alexander(R) vs.(none yet)
TX:Cornyn(R) vs.(none yet)
VA:Warner(D) vs.(none yet)
WV:Capito(R) vs.(none yet)
WY:Enzi(R) vs.(none yet)
Senate Votes (analysis)
Email Contact Form