If US gov't were a business, balance sheet looks mismanaged
Q: What are your plans for insuring the finances of Social Security and Medicare?
A: Let's be up front about the magnitude of the problem. If the US government were a corporation and they had to report to the shareholders, and they had to list
the unfunded liability of Social Security and Medicare, can you imagine what that would look like on the balance sheet? Well, I'll tell you, the most conservative number is $39 trillion. This has been mismanaged for an extended period of time.
Source: 2007 AFSCME Democratic primary debate in Carson City Nevada
Feb 21, 2007
Index by prices instead of wages, to maintain stability
Q: What are your plans for insuring the finances of Social Security?
A: First and foremost, you're going to have to take a look at the way in which Social Security is indexed. Currently, it's indexed based on wages and price.
We can index it on price and still maintain the stability of Social Security and maintain the purchasing power of Social Security without necessarily jeopardizing the future of Social Security.
Source: 2007 AFSCME Democratic primary debate in Carson City Nevada
Feb 21, 2007
Create Retirement Savings Accounts.
Vilsack signed the manifesto, "A New Agenda for the New Decade":
Balance America’s Commitments to the Young and the Old An ever-growing share of the federal budget today consists of automatic transfers from working Americans to retirees. Moreover, the costs of the big entitlements for the elderly -- Social Security and Medicare -- are growing at rates that will eventually bankrupt them and that could leave little to pay for everything else government does. We can’t just spend our way out of the problem; we must find a way to contain future costs. The federal government already spends seven times as much on the elderly as it does on children. To allow that ratio to grow even more imbalanced would be grossly unfair to today’s workers and future generations. In addition, Social Security and Medicare need to be modernized to reflect conditions not envisioned when they were created in the 1930s and the 1960s. Social Security,
for example, needs a stronger basic benefit to bolster its critical role in reducing poverty in old age. Medicare needs to offer retirees more choices and a modern benefit package that includes prescription drugs. Such changes, however, will only add to the cost of the programs unless they are accompanied by structural reforms that restrain their growth and limit their claim on the working families whose taxes support the programs.
Goals for 2010
Honor our commitment to seniors by ensuring the future solvency of Social Security and Medicare.
Make structural reforms in Social Security and Medicare that slow their future cost growth, modernize benefits (including a prescription drug benefit for Medicare), and give beneficiaries more choice and control over their retirement and health security.
Create Retirement Savings Accounts to enable low-income Americans to save for their own retirement.
Source: The Hyde Park Declaration 00-DLC7 on Aug 1, 2000
Maintain long-term solvency of Social Security and Medicare.
Vilsack adopted the National Governors Association position paper:
The Issue
With the first federal budget surplus in a generation and estimates of non-Social Security surpluses ranging from $750 billion to $1.9 trillion over the next decade, the issue is whether Congress and the President will agree to dedicate a portion of the projected surplus to tax cuts and, if so, what the impacts on states might be.
Tax issues raise several concerns for states.
How much of the potential non-Social Security surplus should be dedicated to tax cuts and breaks?
Absent any consensus on long-term legislation to ensure solvency of Social Security and Medicare, would major federal revenue losses for tax cuts risk shifting substantial entitlement burdens to states?
How would federal tax changes affect state income taxes?
What are key elements for states of any future major tax bill? In school construction? For retirement? For housing and economic development? For health care?
NGA’s Position
NGA opposes reductions from current discretionary spending levels or changes that could risk the long-term solvency of the nation’s Social Security and Medicare systems. NGA supports provisions to ensure reduced barriers to state and local capital finance through tax-exempt bonds and to ensure maximum flexibility in setting and maintaining state retirement plans and programs.
Source: National Governors Association "Issues / Positions" 01-NGA16 on Aug 1, 2001
