OnTheIssuesLogo

Sam Brownback on Social Security

Republican Sr Senator (KS)


Supports personal Social Security accounts

Q: Tell us why you think you're going to win the Republican presidential nomination.

A: I've been in this kind of race before, where my poll numbers are lower than some of the other candidates', but my positions are consistent with where the base of the party is. I'm an economic conservative. I'm for pro-growth and an alternative flat tax and personal Social Security accounts, restraining federal spending.

Source: CNN Late Edition: 2007 presidential series with Wolf Blitzer Feb 25, 2007

Voted to stop the raid on the Social Security Trust Fund

The Club for Growth supports entitlement reforms that enable personal ownership of retirement and healthcare programs, benefit from market returns, and diminish dependency on government. Senator Brownback has been an outspoken and brave supporter of Social Security reform:
Source: Club for Growth, "Second Presidential White Paper" Feb 2, 2007

Voted YES on establishing reserve funds & pre-funding for Social Security.

Voting YES would:
  1. require that the Federal Old Age and Survivors Trust Fund be used only to finance retirement income of future beneficiaries;
  2. ensure that there is no change to benefits for individuals born before January 1, 1951
  3. provide participants with the benefits of savings and investment while permitting the pre-funding of at least some portion of future benefits; and
  4. 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."