Ron Johnson is holding a hearing on Social Security today, but there’s a few key pieces of his record on Social Security that he might leave out. Here’s a quick rundown of just how dangerous Johnson’s positions on Social Security really are:
· Ron Johnson has repeatedly referred to Social Security as a “Ponzi Scheme,” doubling down on this radical position multiple times, as recent as August of this year.
· Ron Johnson supported the Cut, Cap, and Balance plan, which would force massive cuts to Social Security. Johnson called it a “credible plan” and a “real solution,” even as groups like AARP adamantly opposed it.
· Ron Johnson said that cutting Social Security benefits should be “on the table” and repeatedly voted against protecting Social Security from privatization.
“Time and time again, Ron Johnson has made his reckless and out-of-touch positions on Social Security abundantly clear,” said Sadie Weiner, DSCC Communications Director. “Whether it is calling Social Security a Ponzi Scheme or voting to make massive cuts to it, Johnson’s positions are extremely dangerous for Wisconsin seniors who deserve a Senator who will fight to protect Social Security instead of openly advocating to destroy it.”
BACKGROUND:
JOHNSON CALLED SOCIAL SECURITY A “PONZI SCHEME”…
Johnson Reiterated He Belief That Social Security Was A Legal Ponzi Scheme And Said Congress Was “Not Close” To Reforming The Program “A Much As I Have Been Trying.” “Dennis Gjerseth questioned why Johnson has characterized Social Security as a ‘legal Ponzi scheme,’ which the senator again reiterated and said the federal assistance program for the elderly and disabled will need to be addressed by Congress. He said he’s presented different proposals for reform, but they haven’t generated serious discussion. ‘Unfortunately, we’re not close to sitting down and doing that, as much as I have been trying,’ said Johnson, who’s being challenged by Feingold in the 2016 election.” [La Crosse Tribune, 8/26/15]
Johnson Called Social Security A “Legal Ponzi Scheme” And Claimed The Trust Fund Contained Trillions In Government Bonds That Amounted To “A Bunch Of Paper.” “Johnson also called Social Security a ‘legal Ponzi scheme.’ A Ponzi scheme takes money from later investors in the scheme and uses it to pay off earlier investors. ‘People have been paying into the system for decades as they have been working, but that money has not been put into an account with their name,’ he said. ‘That money is gone, it has been spent, paid to current beneficiaries.’ Johnson said the social security trust fund contains $2.77 trillion in U.S. Government bonds. He said this meant that the trust fund was ‘a bunch of paper.’ ‘The trust fund has no financial value to the federal government,’ he said, asserting that the government would pay out 15 trillion dollars more than it takes in on payroll taxes over the next 30 years. ‘It is not a solvent system. We need to recognize that, and that is the first step towards solving the problem,’ he said. ‘We have a $15 trillion dollar deficit and nobody is doing anything about it.’” [Ashland Daily Press, 8/7/15]
Johnson Said Social Security Was A “Ponzi Scheme” And Never Meant To Be A Full Retirement Plan. “He called social security a ‘Ponzi Scheme’ of monumental proportions and added, ‘The Social Security Trust Fund is not a solvent system.’ He said the Social Security was never meant to be a full retirement program and will be even less so in the future.” [Phillips Bee, 4/11/13]
JOHNSON VOTED FOR CUT, CAP, AND BALANCE, WHICH HE CALLED “CREDIBLE” AND “A REAL SOLUTION”…
Johnson Voted For A Bill To Make The Debt Limit Increase Contingent On Setting And Enforcing Statutory Spending Gaps As A Percentage Of GDP In FY 2012-FY 2021. In July 2011, Johnson against a: “Reid, D-Nev., motion to table (kill) the Reid motion to proceed to the bill that would make an increase in the debt limit contingent upon the passage of a balanced-budget constitutional amendment. The bill 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 in fiscal 2012 through 2021.” The motion to table failed 51-46. [CQ, 7/22/11; H.R. 2560, Vote 116,7/22/11]
· Johnson Proposed “Cut, Cap, And Balance” As A “Credible Plan To Control Spending.” Johnson wrote an op-ed that said, “What we need to do to get our economy moving again is pretty obvious. Here’s a short outline of the necessary components of a solution: […] c Credible plan to control spending: The elements of the ‘Cut, Cap and Balance’ plan had the support of 66 percent to 74 percent of the American people. Once consumers and investors are convinced we have spending under control, confidence will return to our economy.” [Washington Times, Johnson Op-Ed, 8/29/11]
· Johnson Said “Cut, Cap and Balance” Was A “Real Solution” To Cut The Budget. JOHNSON: “And you know, and honestly, you know, there is a real solution out there. It is called Cut, Cap and Balance. It hasn’t gotten a whole lot of play. Because these negotiations pretty well sucked all the air out of the room, we weren’t able to really put this on the table until last week. So, it is a very reasonable proposal, Don. If we’re going to fix this problem, we are going to have to first cut first year spending. I mean, you just have to do that. If you are going to get a trillion dollars worth of cuts, you better cut $100 billion this year. The only way it’s credible. Then what we need to do is we need to cap the increase of the rate of growth in spending. We’re not talking about cutting spending. We’re talking about just limiting the growth in spending. We have to do that statutorily. And I think if we’re actually going to ever solve this problem, we have to have a constitutional amendment that limits the size of government and leads to a balanced budget. I don’t ever see the political will in this town to prevent bankrupting America without that type of constitutional limitation.” [Fox Business Network, Imus In The Morning, 7/27/11] (VIDEO)
…WHICH WOULD FORCE DEEP CUTS TO SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE
CBPP: Cut, Cap And Balance Bill “Would Necessitate Deep Cuts” To Social Security And Medicare, “Big Cuts” To Social Security And Medicare Would Be “Inevitable.” “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]
JOHNSON SAID CUTTING SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS SHOULD BE “ON THE TABLE”
Johnson Said To Solve Social Security, Upping The Payroll Tax, Cutting Benefits, Raising The Retirement Age Should “All” Be “On The Table.” “U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson, a Republican from Oshkosh, met Monday with the Leader-Telegram Editorial Board and fielded questions on several topics. Following are edited versions of some of his responses: […] Q: How do you address the long-term Social Security solvency issue without upping the payroll tax, cutting benefits or raising the retirement age? A: You can put all those things on the table. It’s actually actuarily pretty easy to do. It’s just a matter of how you tweak it.” [Eau Claire Leader-Telegram, 8/30/11]
JOHNSON VOTED AGAINST PROTECTING SOCIAL SECURITY FROM PRIVATIZATION
Johnson Voted Against Preventing Social Security Benefit Cuts, Raising The Retirement Age, Or Privatization. In April 2015, Johnson voted against: “Sanders, D-Vt., motion to instruct conferees to insist that the conference report include language that would prevent legislation that sought to cut benefits, raise the retirement age, or privatize Social Security.” The motion was rejected by a vote of 84-13. [CQ, 4/15/15; S. Con. Res. 11, Vote 150, 4/15/15]
Johnson Voted Against Creating A 60 Vote Point Of Order Against Any Legislation That Would Privatize Social Security, Reduce Guaranteed Benefits, Increase Out Of Pocket Expenses, Or Turn It Into A Premium-Support Plan. In March 2015, Johnson voted against “Stabenow, D-Mich., motion to waive the Budget Act with respect to the Enzi, R-Wyo., point of order against the Bennet, D-Colo., amendment no. 601 for not being germane. The Bennet amendment would create a 60-vote point of order against any legislation that would privatize Medicare, reduce guaranteed benefits, increase out of pocket expenses or turn the program into a premium-supported plan.” The amendment failed 46-53. [CQ, 3/25/15; S. Con. Res. 11, Vote 90, 3/25/15]
Johnson Voted Against Protecting Social Security From Benefit Cuts Or Privatization. In March 2015, Johnson voted against a: “Wyden, D-Ore., motion to waive the Budget Act with respect to the Enzi, R-Wyo., point of order against the Wyden amendment no. 471 for not being germane. The Wyden amendment would create a 60-vote point of order against any legislation that would reduce Social Security benefits, increase the retirement age for benefits or privatize Social Security.” The motion was rejected 51-48. [CQ, 3/24/15, S.Amdt. 471 to S.Con.Res. 11, Vote 84, 3/24/15]
