Young has voted five times to risk Hoosiers retirement funds on Wall Street
The DSCC released a new ad highlighting Congressman Todd Young’s plan, which he brags about being “proud” of, that would cut Social Security benefits. He also voted to let Wall Street gamble with Hoosiers’ retirement funds in the stock market, and raise the retirement age, forcing Hoosiers’ to wait longer for their hard-earned benefits.
The ad, “Future” can be viewed HERE.
“The future for Indiana seniors is grim if Congressman Todd Young gets his way,” said Sadie Weiner, DSCC Communications Director. “Congressman Todd Young has voted five times to risk Hoosiers’ retirement funds on Wall Street, and that is downright scary for Indiana seniors and families. Congressman Young has not only voted to allow deep cuts to Social Security, but he’s opposed measures meant to protect the program and would even increase the retirement age. Congressman Young is just another out-of-touch Washington politician who’s voting to harm Hoosier families.”
V/O: While hardworking Hoosiers have been worrying about their future, Washington Congressman Todd Young’s been bragging…
GFX: Todd Young
V/O: Saying he’s “proud” of his plan that cuts our Social Security benefits.
GFX: Todd Young:
“Proud” of plan that cuts Social Security
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 7/16/11,
Office of Rep. Young, Press Release, 7/19/11
YOUNG VOTED FOR & SAID HE WAS “PROUD” TO HAVE CO-SPONSORED CUT, CAP & BALANCE…
Young Said He Was “Proud” To Have Co-Sponsored The Cut, Cap, And Balance Act. “Rep. Todd Young (R-IN9) released the follow statement this evening after the House passed H.R. 2560 (Cut, Cap and Balance Act of 2011) a bill he cosponsored by a margin of 234-190. That bill would grant President Obama his request for an increase in the debt ceiling after first cutting spending for FY2012, cap-ping spending as a percentage of the economy in years thereafter, and passing a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Young’s remarks were as follows: ‘I am proud tonight to have supported the Cut, Cap and Balance Act. This bill is, to date, the only plan that averts the short-term crisis by avoiding default, and averts the long-term crisis by getting our federal spending under control. Now we wait on the Senate and President to put their own plan down on paper so that we can work towards a deal that puts America on stable economic footing. As of yet, we have not seen such a concrete plan, which only adds to the uncertainty faced by job creators around this country uncertainty which does and will continue to hinder job creation and income growth.” [Office of Rep. Young, Press Release, 7/19/11]
Young Voted For “Cut, Cap, And Balance” Bill That Would Raise The Debt Ceiling If A Balanced Budget Amendment Is Passed. In July 2011, Young voted for: “Passage of the bill that would make an increase in the debt limit contingent upon the passage of a balanced-budget constitutional amendment. It also would set fiscal 2012 discretionary spending at $1.019 trillion and enforce statutory caps that limit spending as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) in fiscal 2012 through 2021.” The bill passed 234-190. [CQ, 7/19/11; H.R. 2560, Vote 606,7/19/11]
…WHICH “WOULD NECESSITATE DEEP CUTS” TO SOCIAL SECURITY
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: Cut, Cap And Balance Bill “Would Necessitate Deep Cuts” To Social Security And Medicare. “The legislation would inexorably subject Social Security and Medicare to deep reductions. The measure does not cut Social Security or Medicare in 2012. And it does not subject them to automatic cuts if its global spending caps are missed. It is inconceivable, however, that policymakers would meet the bill’s severe annual spending caps through automatic across-the-board cuts year after year; if they did, key government functions would be crippled. Policymakers would have little alternative but to institute deep cuts in specific programs. And as noted elsewhere in this statement, before the debt limit could be raised, Congress would have to approve a constitutional balanced budget amendment that essentially requires cuts even deeper than those in the Ryan budget. Reaching and maintaining a balanced budget in the decade ahead while barring any tax increases would necessitate deep cuts in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. After all, by 2021, total expenditures for these three programs will be nearly 45 percent greater than expenditures for all other programs (except interest payments) combined. Big cuts in these programs would be inevitable.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 7/16/11]
AARP Opposed Cut, Cap And Balance Because It Did Not Shield Social Security and Medicare From “Arbitrary Reductions.” “In addition, the Cut, Cap and Balance Act requires that a balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution be transmitted to the states as a pre-condition of increasing the debt ceiling. Social Security and Medicare, which are not excluded under the balanced budget amendment, would therefore be at risk for arbitrary reductions under the constitutional amendment, and as such, AARP is opposed.” [AARP Letter, 7/21/11]
National Committee To Preserve Social Security And Medicare: Cut, Cap And Balance “Would Require Draconian Spending Cuts Of Such A Magnitude As To Force Policymakers To Severely Slash Medicare, Medicaid, And Many Other Programs While Opening The Door To Massive New Tax Cuts.” According to The National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare: As a result, these proposals would require draconian spending cuts of such a magnitude as to force policymakers to severely slash Medicare, Medicaid, and many other programs while opening the door to massive new tax cuts. What is most alarming to our members is that the amendment would negatively impact Social Security by essentially nullifying the trust funds as a source of funding for the payment of benefits.” [National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, 7/18/11]
V/O: Young voted five times in support of letting Wall Street risk seniors’ Social Security on the stock market…
GFX: Todd Young:
in support of risking
H.J.Res.59, Vote 477, 9/20/13
H.Con.Res.34, Vote 276, 4/15/11
H.J.Res.48, Vote 178, 3/15/11
Los Angeles Times, 8/24/15
YOUNG VOTED FIVE TIMES AGAINST PROTECTING SOCIAL SECURITY FROM PRIVATIZATION
2013: Young Voted Against Barring The Use Of Funds In The Underlying Bill To Privatize Social Security. In September 2013, Young voted against “Enyart, D-Ill., motion to recommit the joint resolution to the House Appropriations Committee and report it back immediately with an amendment that would fund military personnel accounts, the Social Security Administration’s administrative expenses, the Health and Human Services Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services program management account and the Veterans Benefit Administration’s operating expenses through Sept. 30, 2014. It also would bar the use of funds provided by the bill to implement a system that would privatize the Social Security program, reduce the insurance benefits it provides or to establish a Medicare voucher plan that provides limited payments to purchase health care in the private sector. It also would increase funding for the Essential Air Service by $2.7 million and decrease the Transportation Department Planning, Research and Development account by the same amount.” The motion failed 190-228. [CQ, 9/20/13, H.J.Res.59, Vote 477, 9/20/13]
2012: Young Voted In Committee Against Stating That Congress Should Not Privatize Social Security. In March 2012, Young voted in committee against: “Castor, D-Fla. – Amendment that would add “sense of the House” language stating that ‘Social Security privatization is fiscally irresponsible and would put the retirement security of seniors at risk, and that any Social Security reform legislation shall reject partial or complete privatization of the program that includes private accounts funded by current payroll taxes.’ It would amend the committee report to reflect the policy assumption that the resolution assumes ‘any Social Security reform legislation rejects privatization proposals, because the diversion of payroll contributions and reliance on the financial markets undermines the federal budget and the social safety net.’” The amendment was rejected 15-21. [CQ Committee Coverage, House Budget Committee Markup, 3/21/12]
2011: Young Voted To Oppose Preventing The Privatization Of Social Security. In April 2011, Young voted against: “Van Hollen, D-Md., substitute amendment that would allow $3.02 trillion in new budget authority for fiscal 2012. It would freeze non-security discretionary spending for five years and propose phasing out overseas contingency funding. It assumes the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are made permanent for those making less than $250,000 a year but are allowed to expire for those with higher incomes. It assumes increased funding for infrastructure, child-care programs, energy independence, veterans’ support programs, college affordability and housing. It projects a balanced budget except for interest on the debt by fiscal 2018.” The amendment failed 166-259. [CQ, 4/15/11; H.Con.Res.34, Vote 276, 4/15/11]
2011: Young Voted In Committee Against Stating That Any Social Security Overhaul Should Reject Privatization. In April 2011, Young voted against: “Castor, D-Fla. – Amendment that would call for the resolution to express a sense of the House that Social Security privatization is fiscally irresponsible and puts seniors’ retirement at risk, and that any Social Security overhaul should reject partial or complete privatization. It also would amend the committee report to reflect the policy assumption that any Social Security overhaul legislation rejects privatization proposals.” The amendment was rejected 16-20. [CQ Committee Coverage, House Budget Committee Markup, 4/6/11]
2011: Young Voted To Allow The Use Funds To Privatize Social Security. In March 2011, Young voted against a: “Critz, D-Pa., motion to recommit the joint resolution to the Appropriations Committee with instructions that it be reported back immediately with an amendment that would bar the use of funds made available in the measure to develop or implement a system that would cut Social Security or Medicare benefits, privatize Social Security, eliminate guaranteed health coverage for seniors or establish a Medicare voucher plan that limits payments to beneficiaries.” The motion was rejected by a 190-239 vote. [CQ, 3/15/11; H.J. Res. 48, Vote 178, 3/15/11]
SOCIAL SECURITY PRIVATIZATION WOULD RISK RETIREMENT IN THE STOCK MARKET
Los Angeles Times: “Market Crashes Could Destroy A Nest Egg That Took A Lifetime To Nurture.” “Market crashes could destroy a nest egg that took a lifetime to nurture. A near-retiree with, say, a half-million in stock in 2007 had just over $300,000 a year later, following a 37.22% plunge in 2008. Those who held fast managed to recover their losses, but that took five and a half years–and what about those who didn’t have the luxury of time?” [Los Angeles Times, 8/24/15]
ThinkProgress: Privatizing Social Security Would Increase Risk For Retirement Accounts, And Would Be “Particularly Problematic For Anyone Who Needs To Retire In The Midst Of A Serious Market Downturn.” “On a larger level, putting people’s Social Security contributions into private accounts makes them far more exposed to the irrationality of the market. ‘What’s beautiful about Social Security is that in the long the return workers get on contributions is linked to productivity growth and wage growth,’ said Monique Morrissey, an economist at the Economic Policy Institute. […] Americans are already affected by those ups and downs of the stock market through their 401(k) savings, which have skyrocketed in recent decades. Privatizing Social Security would increase the risks they have to take on. ‘We have a system where workers are already far too exposed to the vagaries of the stock market,’ Morrissey said. ‘We don’t need to be expanding that.’ This is particularly problematic for anyone who needs to retire in the midst of a serious market downturn, such as during the recession. ‘We do have periods where the market is down for long periods of time,’ Baker noted. Social Security ‘was supposed to be money you could count on and be sure it’s there.’” [Think Progress, 8/24/15]
AARP: Social Security Privatization “Would Eliminate The Guarantee That Social Security Provides And Reduce Benefits.” “AARP CEO A. Barry Rand offered the following statement in response to inaccurate media stories on the association’s policy on Social Security: ‘Let me be clear – AARP is as committed as we’ve ever been to fighting to protect Social Security for today’s seniors and strengthening it for future generations. […] AARP strongly opposed a privatization plan in 2005, and continues to oppose this approach, because it would eliminate the guarantee that Social Security provides and reduce benefits, and we are currently fighting proposals to cut Social Security to pay the nation’s bills.” [AARP, Press Release, 6/17/11]
NCPSSM: “Social Security Provides A Guaranteed Income” But Private Social Security Accounts Would Expose Benefits To The Stock Market, Where “Returns Are Never Guaranteed.” “Right now, Social Security provides a guaranteed income, paying benefits every month for life, with increases for inflation. After adjusting for risk, Social Security has a rate of return equal to that of any mix of financial assets in private accounts. And risk must be taken into account, because stock market returns are never guaranteed!” [National Committee to Preserve Social Security & Medicare, Accessed 8/25/16]
Social Security Works: Social Security “Provides A Guaranteed Benefit” But Private Social Security Accounts “Would Remove This Guarantee” And Gamble Social Security Benefits On Wall Street. “Social Security is so valuable because it provides a guaranteed benefit. Privatizing Social Security by allowing people to divert their Social Security contributions into private accounts, would remove this guarantee and let people gamble their retirement savings in the casinos of Wall Street.” [Social Security Works, Accessed 8/25/16]
V/O: …and he wants to raise the retirement age, putting
Hoosiers’ hard-earned benefits further out of reach.
GFX: Todd Young
Raise Retirement Age
Indianapolis Star, 10/23/12
V/O: Todd Young’s just another Washington politician. Not looking out for Indiana.
GFX: Todd Young
Not Looking Out for Indiana.
YOUNG SUPPORTS RAISING THE SOCIAL SECURITY RETIREMENT AGE
2012: Young Supported The Simpson-Bowles Social Security Reform Plan, Which Raised The Retirement Age. According to The Indianapolis Star, “He [Young] supports the bipartisan Ryan-Wyden plan to reform Medicare, which would create a voucher-like option for people younger than 55. On Social Security, he would use the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles plan as a framework for an overhaul — the plan would increase revenues and slow the growth of benefits, in part by raising the retirement age.” [Indianapolis Star, 10/23/12]
2010: Young Supported Raising The Retirement Age On Social Security. According to WRBI – 103.9 FM, “The Republican is a 37 year old attorney and father with a military background in intelligence. After being introduced by the state attorney general and sharing his views and background, Young took questions on the economy, relations with Iran , and a bi-partisan commission proposal to look at entitlement spending. He said he’s ready to make the hard decisions, one being on raising the retirement age in order to sustain social security.” [WRBI – 103.9 FM, 2/25/10]
V/O: DSCC is responsible for the content of this advertising.
GFX: PAID FOR BY DSCC,
WWW.DSCC.ORG, AND NOT
AUTHORIZED BY ANY CANDIDATE
OR CANDIDATE’S COMMITTEE. DSCC IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE
CONTENT OF THIS ADVERTISING.
IN THE STATES: Senate Democrats Highlight How They’re Fighting For Working Families During State Work Period
18 hrs Ago