Boyle Opening Statement at 11/29 Hearing on "Examining the Need for a Fiscal Commission"

WASHINGTON, DC — Today, Pennsylvania Congressman Brendan F. Boyle, Ranking Member of the House Budget Committee, delivered opening remarks at a Budget Committee hearing on “Examining the Need for a Fiscal Commission: Reviewing H.R. 710, H.R. 5779, and S. 3262.”

 

(Click for video of remarks as delivered)

 

Ranking Member Boyle’s remarks as delivered:

 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate your passion for this issue. And I also, I hope they know I respect every single one of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and appreciate their sincerity when it comes to this issue.

 

I don't know how to go about this without being repetitive because we just had a hearing on exactly this topic a couple weeks ago. And so I don't want to repeat everything that I said then, but some of that overlap will obviously be unavoidable. For those of you who were at our last hearing just a couple weeks ago on this topic, you know that I have real skepticism when it comes to the topic of commissions.

 

I thought the panel that we had a couple weeks ago of those former members of the House and current members of the House who participated in prior commissions talked about their experiences, every one of those commissions ultimately ended in failure. So, rather than focus on a commission, which ultimately is about process, I want to focus my remarks actually on substance.

 

And very specifically on Social Security. Here's why: As someone who watches the Republican presidential debates, I have been — I have interesting viewing habits, I know — I have been struck by how a number of the leading candidates have flat out said they want to raise the retirement age. One of the leading candidates, who just got a major endorsement from a Republican establishment group yesterday, has repeatedly said, we need to raise the retirement age from 65.

 

She seems to be entirely unaware that the retirement age for Social Security hasn't been 65 for quite some time. Almost a decade ago, when my father, after 50 years of hard work at blue collar jobs, from the age of 16 to the age of 67, went ahead and retired. His retirement age then was 66. In a few years, it'll be 67 because of changes that were made in a law that passed this body in 1983.

 

So if someone wants to send an email to the governor of South Carolina and let her know this, it would be wonderful. I would also like to let people know a few other facts about Social Security. Greatest anti-poverty program in American history. Just think, back in the throes of the Great Depression, 46 percent of seniors lived in poverty.

 

Today that number is a fraction of that. So to those who are saying that in order to save the program, we have to extract exorbitant cuts. Where we have to raise the retirement age, to I don't know, to 70? Beyond? That's a little like saying, uh, we need to burn the village in order to save it. It just isn't true.

 

And as I pointed out in the very last hearing, I have actually put down a plan on paper that would extend the life of the Social Security Trust Fund through the year 2100. I have a piece of legislation with Sheldon Whitehouse, the Senator from Rhode Island, who is the Chairman of our counterpart, the Senate Budget Committee.

 

He and I have a bill that would do that for Social Security, simply by bringing in more revenues, from those who make more than $400,000 a year. Now, some might object to more revenues coming into the Social Security pot. I would say two things in response. First, and this comes up every single time I have a town hall, whether it was in person or tele-town hall, maybe some of you have had the same experience.

 

For years and years, Social Security Trust Fund was running a surplus. The 60s, and the 70s, and the 80s, and the 90s. And here's where I would agree with the Chairman. Congress is under the control of both parties. Instead of using that surplus to set it aside for future retirees that would be there, they decided to spend that surplus to meet what were the needs of the current day.

 

That is a tragedy. You know, I remember those great Saturday Night Live skits about Al Gore and making fun of his lockbox, in the year 2000. You know, he was right. Had that surplus been saved in a lockbox or whatever you want to call it, there would be more revenue available now that those who were earning those wages to pay those Social Security taxes back in the 70s and 80s and 90s and aughts now that they're retiring today.

 

So it is only fair that more revenue is brought into the system when you consider back when there was more revenue than was going out to meet the needs of retirees then, that money was spent on things that were other than Social Security. So, I think that it is entirely appropriate when it comes to extending the life of the Social Security Trust Fund.

 

I would also point out, and this has come up repeatedly throughout the year that we've had here in this room of hearings, when you take the 2001 George W. Bush tax cuts that weren't paid for, the 2003 Bush tax cuts that weren't paid for, the reauthorization of most of that a decade later, and then the 2017 TCJA. I asked numerous witnesses, what is the cumulative amount of those tax cuts that weren't paid for? And the figure that was cited repeatedly at that table was $10 trillion. So when we look at that national debt of about $33 trillion, remember, about 10 of that is missing revenue from the last 22 years of tax cuts that weren't paid for.

 

So I appreciate, again, the sincerity of those who believe that a commission would be a better process, but as I pointed out a couple weeks ago and I'll repeat today, whether it's a commission or some other process, in the end of the day, it will come down to individuals voting from a couple menus of options.

 

And the main menu will have either more revenues, or cuts, or some combination of thereof. And you can have the greatest, biggest blue ribbon possible and put that on a commission. That won't be a substitute for the fact that ultimately, individuals will have to put up a vote, either saying yes, this is how we're going to raise more revenue, or yes, this is how we're going to enact cuts.

 

I'm very clear the side that I come on. It would be very easy and intellectually dishonest if I sat here and said, oh we don't need more revenues, and things are going to be perfectly fine. No, I acknowledge, as I've said, the Social Security Trust Fund is projected to fall short of meeting 75 percent of benefits somewhere between the year 2033 and 2034.

 

The trustees of Social Security say it's 2034, CBO says it's 2033. We can safely say in roughly a decade, we will meet a critical point. It's pretty clear on what side I come down. More revenues into the Social Security Trust Fund and we will be able to say for the lifetime of my daughter, who in the year 2100, God willing, if she's still alive, would be 86 years old.

 

I'll be able to look her in the eye and say, Social Security will be there for the rest of your lifetime and beyond that, simply by bringing in more revenues from those who are in the top 1 percent of earners. I think that is fair. I think that is appropriate. And for those who disagree, I would be very interested in seeing what their plan is and their alternative.

 

And with that, I'll yield back. Thank you, Chairman.

 

###