Damaging Social Security

DAMAGING SOCIAL SECURITY -- (House of Representatives - February 01, 2005)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) for her initiative. Millions of Americans want to know what the truth is. Because of the gentlewoman's leadership, we are trying to get those facts out here today.

Yes, I was chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission under President Carter.

The gentlewoman from New York and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) have been talking about the issue of race and gender.

Let us be clear, this argument is a nullity. Under the Constitution of the United States, government benefits may not be distributed taking race and sex into account. The courts have spoken on that. So if there are racial disparities or gender disparities, they are off the table constitutionally. Race is a suspect classification, and I do not want to get technical, which means you can only use race if there is no other way to accomplish the purpose.

What is the purpose we are trying to accomplish here? Does the other side want to make sure that black men who have lower incomes than others get what? Privatize what little income they have, take it out of their meager earnings for private accounts? Are you going to give them more money because they die early? Come on. Let me hear what you are going to do to make up for the fact that black men die early, and leave aside health, because that is very clear. You cannot do it in any way, and maybe if you are on the Committee on Ways and Means you have not looked at the Constitution, but some of us have. We cannot put race and sex on the table under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and under the equal protection clause of the United States.

I do want to say how we got into this crisis. Do we forget that the Republicans inherited a Social Security Trust Fund that was in surplus? Why are we here? Do you forget the days of the lockbox when Clinton-Gore said do not touch Social Security, we have a surplus, put the money in the lockbox and we will never have to worry about Social Security?

We had enough to pay for Social Security and then a surplus. What happened to it, my friends? George Bush and the Republicans came to power and they decided they had a use for the funds in the lockbox and they unlocked it, and they distributed it in disproportionate amounts to the very rich who do not need to even think about Social Security. They distributed it in a war, a controversial war from which they cannot extricate themselves. And to have had the nerve to quote President Clinton talking about the crisis. Indeed he was. He said, over and over again, we are going to have a crisis if you get into this lockbox, and he had hardly gotten out of Washington then George Bush was picking the lock. They got us into this crisis, and they want to make it worse because they want to privatize Social Security. The only way to do that is take more money, this time not from the surplus because they have used that up, but from deficit spending. This is not even ancient history. It is history that many Members of this House have lived.

Finally, let me say a word on race and gender. I know that the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) said he was only putting it on the table. Thank goodness the 14th amendment keeps us from putting certain kinds of things on the table. You cannot say to somebody, because you are black, I think you are going to live a little less long and so, I am not sure what the remedy is, by the way, but I am going to do something to you for that reason. And women, wait a minute, you live too long, so I am not sure what I am going to do to you.

Let us hear what their proposal is. Are you going to take back their Social Security? Reduce their Social Security? Any of those things, my friends, is unconstitutional under the equal protection clause. They should be taken off the table. You threw it out there, and you expect us not to respond.

Finally, let me say this. One of the reasons why women and people of color embrace Social Security so much is because, in fact, they get disproportionately from Social Security. Because their wages are lower and because the Social Security system is progressive, they pull from Social Security disproportionate amounts given what they, in fact, contributed to Social Security, because this is not a one-on-one system, what you give to the system, you get back. This is a progressive tax system, so you get back disproportionately. I do think it is important to get into some of these details so that, in fact, people can understand why we must oppose the privatization of Social Security. You can bank on this, Democrats who gave us Social Security are not going to be present at the funeral of Social Security. We are here this year to save it for the American people. I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership on this very important issue.

http://thomas.loc.gov/