February 25, 1997
BBCA Opponents' Actions Raise Questions of Sincerity
Opponents of S.J.Res. 1, the bipartisan balanced budget constitutional amendment (BBCA), still claim that they want a balanced budget. Foremost among their stated reasons for opposing the BBCA has been their insistence that Social Security's operations be excluded from federal budget calculations. We've heard the claim that if this one change were accepted, they would be onboard with the majority in the Senate who favor S.J.Res. 1.
However, recent votes of BBCA opponents suggest they are using the Social-Security-exclusion argument as a shield. Despite their claims of wanting a balanced budget, they have not voted to balance the budget, but rather, most of them have voted to increase spending and taxes. Despite their claim to want to protect Social Security beneficiaries, they have voted to increase taxes on some Social Security beneficiaries. Simply put, the rhetoric and the reality don't add up. Consider that:
The Social Security Exclusion Gimmick
Four attempts were made to pass a BBCA in the Senate (1982, when it actually passed; 1987; 1988; and 1992) before opponents came up with the idea of using Social Security as cover for opposing the amendment in 1995. BBCA opponents' proposal is to exclude the operations of Social Security -- the largest program in the federal budget -- from the rest of the budget. Because Social Security is running a surplus in the short-term and massive deficits in the long-term, the long-term effect of the exclusion proposal would be extremely detrimental [See RPC's "Dire Consequences of Democrats' Social-Security-Exclusion Budget: Taking a Ride on a Fiscal Roller Coaster," 2/25/97]. However, the demagogic appeal of Social Security to BBCA opponents apparently outweighs the ill effects.
The gimmicky nature of the exclusion proposal is evident upon examination of its fiscal effect that requires short-run excess deficit reduction of $1.935 trillion from 2002 to 2018 (beyond that needed to reach actual balance in federal spending) and long-run deficits of $2.5 trillion from 2019 to 2028 (with increasing deficits in later years). However, the gimmicky nature of the exclusion is even more evident when it is compared to other votes of some of those who have supported it.
Not a Matter Principle, a Matter of Politics
Many of the supporters of the Social-Security-exclusion gimmick claim that they do not oppose a BBCA. However, of the 37 senators who have twice voted for the Social Security exclusion, only eight have supported the BBCA as well. [See Listing 2 in the Appendix.]
Six senators actually switched their vote of support for a BBCA in March 1994 to opposition in the two most recent votes on a virtually identical BBCA. What happened in between was the invention of the Social-Security-exclusion gimmick [Listing 3].
Taxing, Not Protecting, Social Security
While the anthem of the supporters of the exclusion provision has been the protection of Social Security beneficiaries, the actions of some of them say otherwise. Of the six Senators who switched from support to opposition of a BBCA between 1994 and 1995, all six voted to increase some Social Security beneficiaries' tax burden by $25 billion in Clinton's 1993 tax bill [Listing 4]. What's more, all six voted against removing this specific provision from the Clinton tax bill [Listing 5].
And, of the 37 Senators who have twice supported the Social Security exclusion to a BBCA, only three specifically voted against increasing some Social Security beneficiaries' tax burden in 1993 [Listing 6].
Finally, even if the Social-Security-exclusion provision were implemented, it would not prevent the same sort of additional beneficiary tax that its proponents overwhelmingly supported in 1993.
Protecting Federal Spending, Not Social Security
It seems apparent that Social Security is not what exclusion proponents really want to protect, but if not, what is the prime target for protection? Spending. The exclusion allows unlimited deficit spending "off-budget," and most of the exclusion supporters have a substantial spending proclivity.
In the National Tax-Limitation Committee's (NTLC) rating of Senators on taxing and spending, the group of 37 received an average failing grade. In contrast to those Senators who were "most favorable to the taxpayer," in NTLC's view (100 percent), the 37 averaged just a 17.2- percent rating. In fact, only 11 of the 37 managed not to get a failing grade, and not one scored as high as 50 percent.
Last year's vote on the Senate's budget resolution further reinforces this point. During consideration of that resolution, which CBO scored as reaching balance in 2002, a series of eight amendments were offered to it that would have had the effect of increasing spending with $295 billion in increased taxes. In that series of eight votes, on average just two of the 37 opposed the additional spending and taxes [Listing 7].
Raising Taxes, Not Protecting Social Security
By examining the latest Social Security trustees' report, we know that if the exclusion provision were to pass that an additional $1.935 trillion in deficit reduction would be required from 2002 to 2018 (beyond that needed to reach actual balance in federal spending). [For a detailed look at this issue, see RPC's "Dire Consequences of Democrats' Social-Security-Exclusion Budget: Taking a Ride on a Fiscal Roller Coaster," 2/25/97.] The question then arises, where is such a vast sum to come from -- cutting Washington spending or taking more from American taxpayers? The actions of the 37 exclusion supporters leaves little doubt of their preferred target: the American taxpayer.
All but four of the 37 Senators who have twice supported exclusion, supported Clinton's 1993 record-breaking tax hike -- the largest in U.S. history [Listing 8].
All but two of the 37 Senators who have twice supported exclusion, specifically opposed removing the $24 billion gas tax hike in the 1993 bill that hit every driving American [Listing 9].
All but two of the 37 Senators, who have twice supported exclusion specifically opposed removing the retroactive taxes from the 1993 Clinton tax bill [Listing 10].
Not Balancing the Budget, Protecting the Deficit
Of the 37 Senators who have twice supported the Social Security exclusion, over half have never voted for a BBCA in the Senate [Listing 11].
Of the 37 senators who have twice supported exclusion, not one voted for the Balanced Budget Act of 1995 -- the only legislation passed by Congress since 1969 that would have balanced the budget had President Clinton not vetoed it.
And, not one voted for last year's budget resolution, which the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said would also have balanced the budget had it been implemented.
Not By What They Say, But By What They Do
Time and time again when the choice has been between Washington spending and the American taxpayer, most of these Social-Security-exclusion supporters have chosen to protect the spending and gouge the taxpayer. American taxpayers who have been hit by the big-spenders and big-taxers now hiding behind Social Security would be wise to compare the record to the rhetoric of those pushing the exclusion gimmick.
APPENDIX
Listing 1
Akaka (D-HI) Baucus (D-MT) Biden (D-DE) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Bradley (D-NJ) Bryan (D-NV) Breaux (D-LA) Bumpers (D-AR) Byrd (D-WV) Conrad (D-ND) Daschle (D-SD) Dorgan (D-ND) Feingold (D-WI) Feinstein (D-CA) Ford (D-KY) Glenn (D-OH) Graham (D-FL) Harkin (D-IA) Heflin (D-AL) Hollings (D-SC) Inouye (D-HI) Johnston (D-LA) Kennedy (D-MA) Kerry (D-MA) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Lieberman (D-CT) Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA) Nunn (D-GA) Pell (D-RI) Pryor (D-AR) Reid (D-NV) Sarbanes (D-MD) Wellstone (D-MN)
Listing 2
Baucus (D-MT) Biden (D-DE) Breaux (D-LA) Bryan (D-NV) Graham (D-FL) Harkin (D-IA) Heflin (D-AL) Nunn (D-GA)
Listing 3
Bingaman (D-NM) Daschle (D-SD) Dorgan (D-ND) Feinstein (D-CA) Ford (D-KY) Hollings (D-SC)
Listing 4
Bingaman (D-NM) Daschle (D-SD) Dorgan (D-ND) Feinstein (D-CA) Ford (D-KY) Hollings (D-SC)
Listing 5
Bingaman (D-NM) Daschle (D-SD) Dorgan (D-ND) Feinstein (D-CA) Ford (D-KY) Hollings (D-SC)
Listing 6
*Senator Murray was not in Congress in 1993. Bingaman (D-NM) Bryan (D-NV) Heflin (D-AL)
Listing 7
Votes referred to are Roll Call Votes: 115 (5/16/96); 117 (5/16/96);119 (5/16/96); 120 (5/22/96); 125 (5/22/96); 126 (5/22/96); 136 (5/22/96); and 155 (5/23/96). See also RPC paper, entitled, "Senate Democrats Support $294.8 Billion in Tax Hikes: 'It's Deja Vu All Over Again,' ", 6/3/96.]
Listing 8
Bryan (D-NV) Johnston (D-LA) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Nunn (D-GA)
Listing 9
*Senator Murray was not in Congress in 1993. Lautenberg (D-NJ) Lieberman (D-CT)
Listing 10
*Senator Murray was not in Congress in 1993. Bingaman (D-NM) Nunn (D-GA)
Listing 11
Akaka (D-HI) Boxer (D-CA) Bradley (D-NJ) Bumpers (D-AR) Byrd (D-WV) Conrad (D-ND) Feingold (D-WI) Glenn (D-OH) Inouye (D-HI) Johnston (D-LA) Kennedy (D-MA) Kerry (D-MA) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Lieberman (D-CT) Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA) Pell (D-RI) Pryor (D-AR) Reid (D-NV) Sarbanes (D-MD) Wellstone (D-MN)
Other Roll Call Votes Referenced
BBA/Social Security Exclusion: Vote No. 65, 104th Congress, 1st Session, 2/14/95
BBA/Social Security Exclusion: Vote No. 2082, 104th Congress, 2nd Session, 4/24/96
Reconsideration of BBCA: Vote No. 158, 104th Congress, 2nd Session, 6/6/96
BBCA: Vote No. 48, 103rd Congress, 2nd Session, 3/1/94
BBCA: Vote No. 98, 104th Congress, 1st Session, 3/2/95
Eliminate New Social Security Tax: Vote No. 169, 103rd Congress, 1st Session, 6/24/93
Reconciliation Conference Report: Vote No. 247, 103rd Congress, 1st Session, 8/6/93
Eliminate Gas Tax Increase: Vote No. 167, 103rd Congress, 1st Session, 6/24/93
Strike Retroactivity of Taxes: Vote No. 186, 103rd Congress, 1st Session, 6/25/93