Mark Sanford

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Right.

Mr. SANFORD. This just goes back to what we were talking about, which is the very poor rate of return that could be projected for future retirees in the current system. That is not to say that Social Security has not done a lot of good for my mom or my grandmom. It is simply a question of the demographics that are coming our way that the gentleman outlined earlier. That translates to a real squeeze in the system and a real squeeze in terms of the rate of return that a young worker can expect to get out of the current system. One of the things I most frequently hear from folks back home is, ``You know, Mark, if you all would just keep your hands off my Social Security money, I would have been fine.'' And we actually looked into that, and it turns out they are right. Because if the surpluses that had come along in past years, and again we missed the number 1937 in the upper left-hand corner, but in 1937 there was a surplus of $766 million in the Social Security System. If instead of that money being borrowed and spent on other things in government, if that had gone into a real account and it had grown and compounded over time, and again this is not a hypothetical number, if it simply had been invested in the stock market, and I am not saying we should put all of Social Security money in the stock market, I am not saying anything like that, just using this as an example of the power of compound interest, if that money had simply gone into the S&P 500, it would today be worth $1.17 trillion. If we follow this argument out, in 1938 our surplus was $365 million in Social Security. If we had put that in the S&P 500, let it grow and compound over time, today that would be worth $485 billion. In 1939, our surplus for Social Security was $590 million. If we had invested that money in the S&P 500, and simply let it grow and compound over time, today that would be worth $680 billion. When we add all these up, we are looking, between the years 1938 and 1942 alone, if Washington had kept its hands off the money, we would have $4 trillion in the bank, which would be solving the whole problem we are here discussing in the place. Again, I am not saying this to suggest that we should put all Social Security money in the stock market.

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, the same study, if one were black, one would actually earn a negative rate of return on the investment because of the shorter life expectancy with black males. So this translates into real money over a person's retirement, because that difference that the gentleman from Oklahoma pointed out, the difference between $3.50 or $4 of earnings on $1 versus 70 cents or 40 cents can make a big difference over time.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I just want to rise in support of this budget resolution because I think it makes a lot of sense for a couple of different reasons. One of the reasons I think would simply be that it recognizes debt is debt, and it was interesting my colleague from South Carolina got into a discussion with my colleague from Wisconsin on, well, as my colleagues know, does the President's proposal save Social Security by moving actuarial insolvency out to 2055 versus not, and I think to a degree those are academic conversations because I think what we have to stay focused on is the promise of Social Security. And the fact is we have got 70 million baby boomers who begin to march off toward retirement around 2012, and whether we have marketable security, nonmarketable security on the budget debt versus off the budget debt is irrelevant in that it is a drain on the resources of the Federal Government and has to be addressed at that time. So, one, this recognizes that debt is debt. Two, I think it has honest accounting in place. If we were to walk down the street; I mean it really does wall off Social Security in a way that has to be done. Do we want to set aside a hundred percent of Social Security for Social Security, which is incidentally what the President said two State of the Unions ago, or do we want to wall off 62 percent of Social Security for Social Security? Most of the folks I talk to back home say let us save a hundred percent of Social Security for Social Security because if I am taxed on something, I want that tax to go toward that thing that I am being taxed on, and in this case it is Social Security. I say honest accounting because if we were to go down the street and see a family that had to borrow, as my colleagues know, to put gas in the car or food on the table, we would say that family was not running a surplus. In the business world if we borrowed against our pension fund assets to pay for the current operations of the company, we would go to jail based on federal law, and yet that is what we have been doing in Washington. Mr. Chairman, that is why I think it is so important to set aside a hundred percent of the Social Security for Social Security. I think that this budget is also important in the way that it recognizes spending caps. I mean can one have a Power Ranger toy and a Obe Wan Kinobe toy at the same time? My 6-year- old would say yes. We go in the toy store, and he wants both. And in Washington we seem to always want both, and I think what is so important about the spending caps that this budget keeps in place is that it recognizes that we cannot have the Obe Wan Kinobe toy and the Power Ranger toy at the same time. At times we do have to make hard and difficult choices, but nonetheless choices. Finally, I think what this budget recognizes that is so important is that right now we are at a post World War II high in terms of the amount of money that has been coming into Washington, D.C. This budget does something about that.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. I thank the gentleman for doing so, and I thank him as well for convening this special order. I want to follow up on what the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) said, which was touching on the whole power of compound interest which cannot be underestimated. In fact, I saw an article yesterday in the Washington Post that I wish I had brought with me about an older man that put a little bit of money in stocks and lived a very simple life and yet ended up with a whole lot to show for it. What I think is interesting on that point though is somebody on my staff was kind enough to do this, and this is a home-done chart, so I guess we are saving the taxpayer money by not having a professional chart done, but it points out this power of compound interest because in 1937, and I did not realize this, Social Security actually ran a $766 million surplus. It is a pay-as-you-go system, so what is not spent ends up going into the general coffers the way it is now configured. Now, if we grew that at about 10 percent, maybe that is too high a rate, maybe the appropriate number that the staffer should have picked would be 5 percent or 6 percent, but he picked 10 percent. Anyway, that would result today, that pot of money back in 1937, that $766 million pot of money, if it grew and compounded at about 10 percent, would end up today having about $1.17 trillion in your bank account. And so when older folks at town hall meetings say to me, ``Mark, you know we wouldn't even be having this problem on Social Security if you all had kept your hands off the money.'' Well, it turns out they are right because just that one year alone you would end up with $1 trillion. Now 1938 the surplus was $365 million. If again you compounded and grew that over this long time period between now and then, you would end up with about $485 billion in the bank. Well, you add those 2 together, and you get 1.66 trillion. In 1939, our surplus in Social Security was 590 million bucks. Again, if you grew and compounded that over time, you would end up with $680 billion. And you do that in 1940; surplus then was $305 million. You grow that and compound that over time, you end up with $310 billion in the bank. In 1941, our surplus was $760 million in payroll taxes. You grew that and compounded that over time, that would be $670 billion. In 1942, and I will not over do this point, but the surplus then was $926 million. You grow and compound that over time, you would end up with basically about $700 billion in the bank. You add all that up just over the 1,2,3,4,5,6 years, that is about $4 trillion. Now the contention liability with Social Security is about $8 trillion. In other words, very quickly you could get to the point wherein the people in my town hall meetings are exactly right. If Washington had truly kept their hands off the money, if the money had been in an account and had grown and compounded over time, we would not be having this conversation tonight, which goes straight back to what the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) is getting at, which is this power of compound interest. The other thought I wanted to pick up on for just 2 seconds is what the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) was talking about, and that is just plain honest accounting, and that is, if you look at the numbers, and again just to pick a couple of numbers, this is fiscal year 1994. Now everybody thought we ran a deficit of about $200 billion. That would have been the number that was talked about. But what is interesting here is, as the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) very correctly pointed out, if you actually look at how much the debt went up, the debt went up by $293 billion. Same thing happened in 1995. It looked like it was 164, but if you look at how much the debt actually went up, it was 277. Same thing a year later. The same thing a year later. Apparently it appeared as if our deficit was $100 billion, but if we look at how much the debt went up, it went up $261 billion. Even just this last year it appeared, now that we are in the black, that we ran a surplus of about $70 billion. Again, if we look at how much the debt actually went up, it actually went up by basically $100 billion. That is not the kind of basic accounting that people use back home in their businesses. It is not the kind of basic accounting somebody uses in balancing the family checkbook. It clearly states we have a real problem with this stuff here in Washington. I have some other weird charts here in my home-done log of charts, but I do not want to belabor that point. I want to talk about these because it is what we are talking about.

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) will yield, I would just pick up where the gentleman from Minnesota leaves off now. I think Alan Greenspan very correctly pointed out the dangers in collective investment. It sounds good, it sounds alluring, and that is, let us send all the money to Washington, let the experts take care of it. But there are real dangers that come with that idea. This other idea, again we are talking about a gradual shift in that direction. It would take time. It is going to take a lot of debate in this place. But the idea of allowing people to invest a portion of their payroll tax in their own personal account does take advantage of this powerful compound interest and takes advantage of it in, I think, a special way that was highlighted in the Washington Post today. In the Metro section of today's Washington Post, there is an article entitled, the ``Munificence of an Unusual Millionaire''. If I may, I would like to read just the first couple of paragraphs of this article. Karl H. Hagen lived modestly and alone for much of his life, in his family's decaying farmhouse in Suitland. For 36 years, he worked for the Potomac Electric Power Co., painting signs and fences and doing other maintenance jobs. He did indulge in a few passions, however, including travel, watercolor painting, reading, ballroom dancing, and investing in stocks and bonds. The latter paid off in a big way. Hagen, whose clothes came from thrift shops and who looked to acquaintances as though he might be homeless, managed to amass a fortune of about $3 million. When he died of a stroke last Thursday at the age of 89, he left his estate to three institutions that had earned his admiration: . . . Johns Hopkins University, the National Air and Space Museum and National Geographic Society. I think that that says a lot about this simple thing of compound interest so well highlighted in today's Washington Post on the front page of the Metro section.

Mr. SANFORD. Before the gentleman does so, if the gentleman will yield for one more second, again, I want to follow up on the point of the gentleman from California. Consistently, the way the rhetoric works around Washington, we would think that Republicans are trying to slash and burn and basically eliminate the city and eliminate all Federal functions. That is what I think is very interesting about this chart. If we look at this line, would the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) tell me whether the line goes up or down? It is a one-way line, and that is going up. All Federal spending in Washington, D.C. has not been cut in real dollars or in nominal dollars. On the whole it has been going up. In 1994 it was $1.4 trillion. In fiscal year 1999, it is $1.7 trillion. The Republicans have not been cutting, eliminating. In fact, things have been going up in Washington.

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, the gentleman is so right. Again, with my homemade charts here, I have another chart showing that exact point the gentleman is making, which is that Washington has been getting bigger raises than working families have gotten. I do not want to bore people to death with a lot of numbers, but whether we start in 1993, we go to 1994, this is the rate at which money coming into Washington has gone up. This is the rate at which people's pocketbooks, if you will, their earnings, have gone up. In every case, it is that red line, which is the money coming into Washington, that has been going up faster than money back home. To say it another way, if we look at these two little lines, this is the rate at which Washington has been getting raises versus the rate at which the rest of America has been getting raises. So the gentleman is exactly right, the thing that is ``balancing the books'' up here has been hard-earned taxpayer dollars coming into Washington, as opposed to fiscal restraint.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I simply applaud the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) for offering this amendment because to me what this amendment is about is simply asking the question: ``Can you be one half pregnant?'' I do not think that one can be. Someone either is or they are not, and what he has boldly said here is that either we are going to set aside every dime for the things that we say we are going to set aside for or we are not, because if not, though this number is small, we run down a very slippery slope on the things we end up spending for and end up not spending for.

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I stand as one against sending troops to Kosovo and one very much behind the timing of this vote for a couple of different reasons, but one in which was well described by Henry Kissinger yesterday. Yesterday, he said before our committee that he and President Nixon believed that we were in trouble in Vietnam because our predecessors had launched the U.S. into an enterprise in a distant region for worthy causes but without adequately assessing the national interest and the likely cost. Now, not after the troops are deployed, not after troops are in the field, but now is the time to assess that cost. I do not think it passes the cost test for a couple of different reasons, the first of which is the domino theory has long been disproven. Clifford Clark was sent by Lyndon Johnson to see our C2 allies in Southeast Asia over 30 years ago to use the same argument. The C2 allies said, no, we do not think this will grow into a giant conflict in Southeast Asia. We choose not to go into South Vietnam or North Vietnam. We ignored their advice and, as a result, 50,000 American boys died. The domino theory has been disproven. For us to send boys into Kosovo means it has got to pass the mommy test. The mommy test for me means it is not only in our strategic interest, but we also have a chance in making a difference. Here, as my colleague just pointed out just a moment ago, we were signing an agreement with Milosevic, who is a person who does not exactly have a lot of trust in the world community. Yet we are validating him by signing an agreement with him. In other words, we are building an agreement on shifting sand. Thirdly, I would say that troops are thought to be used as policemen. Modern armies are designed to move. They are not designed to stand still. I sat on a plane the other day with a young enlisted officer who complained about the fact that he had not seen his baby in 6 months and was being used as a policeman in Bosnia.

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Fowler amendment because it does what Congress is asked to do and, that is, it asks us to be deliberative. We are a deliberative body. It slows us down to look at what is really going on in that part of the world and what should America's involvement be over there. I think that this amendment makes sense and that the policy of engagement in Kosovo, by sending 4,000 American troops onto the ground there, is not one that makes sense. First, because doing so is treating the symptom and not the disease and, therefore, as my colleague from Georgia would realize and know, it is something that does not cure the patient. What I mean by that is that if you had cancer and were given aspirin, you might feel a little bit better but you would not be healed. If you were bleeding because you were in a car wreck and got one of my kid's band-aids to patch you up, you might feel a little bit better but you would not be healed. Milosevic is the problem in that part of the world. Until that problem is fixed, you can have all the agreements you want, you can send all the troops you want, but you will not be doing anything other than treating a symptom, not the disease. It was back in 1987 that Milosevic realized that iron control, if you want to call it that, over Kosovo was his springboard to power. He exercised that control, and by 1991, the former Yugoslavia splitting up, in part because they saw what was happening in Kosovo. Therefore, an agreement that keeps Kosovo as a part of Serbia and disarms the Kosovars to me is a recipe not for peace but for future conflict. It is an agreement that keeps the cause, the real problem here, as the real problem; that is, it is an agreement that keeps Milosevic in power. Two, I would say we need to be deliberative about this, because lasting peace requires either good faith or a victor. This agreement would give us neither one. I mean, the Kosovar Liberation Army wants full independence for Kosovo. Milosevic has built his power, has built a large part of his rise to power on subjugation of Kosovo. What we have, therefore, is no victor and certainly no good will. If we look back to the 1300s, we see not exactly a lot of good will in this part of the world. We leave both ingredients in place which to me again would be a recipe for building an agreement, basically building an agreement on sand, building an agreement that I think would lead to future disaster. Third, I would say this agreement, the idea of sending 4,000 troops into that part of the world is something that does not pass the mommy test. The mommy test to me would be if somebody was killed in the line of duty and the mother of that son or that daughter was in my district and I had to go back and explain that your son or your daughter died for the right reasons, to me that would mean more than just a strategic interest to the United States, because we have a lot of strategic interests around the globe. It would also mean that that son or that daughter's death would have been part of leading to change, that it would have led to some real action. Again, that is not what we have here. Because if we are signing an agreement that some people have equated to Hitler, some people have equated to Saddam Hussein, I mean, clearly a very bad guy, is that an agreement that we are going to really trust? Is that a lasting thing? Most people would say if we signed an agreement with Saddam Hussein, we would not really trust that agreement. In fact that has been proven in the Persian Gulf. If you sign an agreement with Hitler, would you trust that agreement as a lasting instrument? No, you would not. That is what this would be doing. I would say, fourthly, this idea does not make sense because the domino theory has long been disproven. Clark Clifford was sent by President Johnson down to Vietnam for the very reason that is being described as one of the reasons we need to go to Kosovo, and, that was, if we do not do something, this could escalate, this could really grow. That was disproven there. In fact Kissinger came and spoke before our committee yesterday and what he talked about was people did not analyze the cost of involvement and the duration of involvement when they sent people to Vietnam. Are we analyzing that now? Lastly, I would pick up on what the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) was saying, who incidentally was a constitutional lawyer and taught constitutional law at Stanford University, and, that is, it is the Congress' role to declare war. Sending troops into somebody else's sovereign territory or bombing a sovereign territory is clearly an act of war and, therefore, it does need our signature. With that, I would say again, I would ask this body to support the Fowler amendment.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. I agree, but I think, if the gentleman will yield, what is interesting is that before we can get to any Social Security plan, and the gentleman is right, I have been a big proponent of a number of different things on that front, we ultimately have to have trust in government.

Mr. SANFORD. That begins with straightforward and honest accounting, which is what the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) is getting at. Looking at the numbers, by any family definition, if we had somebody living on our street that had to borrow from their retirement reserves to put gas in the car or food on the table, we would say that family was not running a surplus. Similarly, in the business world, if a businessman borrowed against his retirement reserves to pay for the current operations of the company, he would go to jail, based on Federal law. Yet that is what the Federal Government has been doing. So what is being talked about here is a first step of restoring confidence so that people will trust government and they will listen when we propose to them things about Social Security.

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, just following up on the comments of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) on rate of return, because I have heard the same 1.9 percent rate of return. I saw a UCLA study that showed that, for a person born in 1970, earning $30,000, they would have to live 110 years just to get their own money back, not a return on the money, but just to get their own money back. So the bottom line is it is a low rate. What is interesting is, in contrast, I jotted down some numbers here.

Mr. SANFORD. We were talking a little bit earlier, and I want to go back for just one second, on possible cures for Social Security. One of the things that the President proposed in his plan was to invest about a fifth of the, quote, trust fund in equities. While that sounds very alluring, I think it is a very dangerous thing, because as Chairman Greenspan pointed out, you need to create a firewall between Social Security money and political forces in Washington.

Mr. SANFORD. No, but I will see the gentleman back on the floor tomorrow morning.

Mr. SANFORD. If the gentleman will yield, I think what is important about that point is that people remember, and, in fact, we all have heard that one simple fact about real estate, where the equation is location, location, location. Well, in Washington the equation is politics, politics, politics. That is not a bad thing; that is not a good thing, but that is certainly the way this city works. Therefore, I think the real issue to be thought about here is that it is the squeaky wheels that get greased in politics. It is important for people to speak out at town meetings across the country, in writing their Congressmen, in writing their Senators, to say if they are given the choice between spending their children's inheritance or not which one they want done. People really need to be making noise about this, because otherwise the immediate is what gets taken care of in Washington and the money gets spent.

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, which one earns every week, which one earns every month, and which one earns every year. What is interesting is, in contrast, last year, the Fidelity Contra Fund, for instance, which is a huge mutual fund, earned 32 percent. The Van Camp and Capital B Fund, which is the oldest mutual fund in the United States, it was actually started in 1945, earned 28 percent. The T. Rowe Price Tech Fund earned 9 percent. CDs earned 6.5 percent. Even a checking account earned 2 percent. The point that I am making here is, one thing I think we need to be watchful for as policy folks in Washington is we do not have two different retirement plans, one retirement plan for wealthy people that is earning 30 percent or 28 percent, and clearly these are not sustainable numbers, those numbers will go down, but the point is one group is earning a lot on their retirement plan, and then this other group, because Social Security taxes are the largest tax that 73 percent of Americans pay and consequently the largest investment that basically 73 percent of Americans make, and another group earning a negative number or 1 percent number, and that really creates a problem in our society that I think needs to be addressed in the Social Security issue.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, before the gentleman goes on, I see this next chart up on spending, but for one second I would like to go back to that first chart that he was holding up on the surpluses or lack thereof themselves. Because what I think is interesting about that chart is that, while we may not get it in Washington, folks back home in Oklahoma or folks back home in South Carolina or folks back home across this country really understand this chart; and that is, Washington says we are running a surplus. Yet, when I talk to folks back home, what they tell me is, if we went down the street and there was someone living on our street that had to borrow against their pension fund reserves or retirement reserves to put gas in the car or food on the table or rent money down, we would say that family was not running a surplus. In the business world, if we actually borrowed against our pension fund reserves to pay for the current operations of the company, we would go to jail based on Federal law.

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SANFORD. The reason I think that is so important is, more than anything, and this is again what the chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, said, that you have to create a firewall between political forces in Washington and that money. If there is not a firewall, most certainly the money will be borrowed against, which is what has been happening over the last 30 years, to fund other areas of government. So if you are going to create that firewall, again I come down on the side of individual accounts, not only because of the firewall but also because of the way this place works. It is interesting, it sounds enticing, let us invest collectively, we will get the higher return and we will take risk out, but by leaving it there, it leaves Washington's hands in it and that means a couple of things. It means, one, I do not think you can serve two masters. Microsoft stock, for instance, last December, not this December but the December before, between December 18 and December 23 dropped by about 14 percent. It did so when the Justice Department announced that they were bringing suit against Microsoft. If the Federal Government was invested in Microsoft through the form of the Social Security trust fund, then all of a sudden you are going to have AARP calling you up, their representatives saying, ``Wait, don't bring up that suit because my trust fund money is in that.'' In other words, it is very difficult in Washington to serve two masters. I think we ought to think about that. For that matter it is very difficult in Washington to serve one master. The gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) to his credit cares passionately about the issue of tobacco smoking. I cannot imagine him disappearing and not caring what the trust fund was invested in because he cares about the issue. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) from the Republican side cares passionately about the issue of abortion. I cannot imagine him sitting idly by while the trust fund was invested in a pharmaceutical company that had a pill related to abortion. In other words, from all sides there would be political influence in the trust fund. What I think you have to look at in a trust fund is how are you going to get the highest return so that one can enjoy the best return.

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I would say again, and I do not want to go off the subject, which again is rightly focused on honesty in accounting, and that is if we, as my colleagues know, if we have to borrow money to get to run the surplus that we are running, most folks would say we are not running a surplus and therefore it is important to do something about spending. That is the primary thing we are talking about. But tied to that again is this issue of Social Security, and I think it is so important that when we look at security for Social Security, of the available choices which are cut benefits, raise taxes or grow the investment at a higher rate than we are growing at, that we simply take a page out of the Federal book, if my colleagues want to call it that. Because everybody from a senator to a janitor here on Capitol Hill has the option of going into basically a 401(k) plan, a savings plan, and in that plan they have got a limited number of investment choices. One can have a Treasury fund, a corporate bond fund or an equities fund; and with all that, nobody can put all their eggs in one basket, nobody can go out and say, I have got a hot stock tip from my brother-in-law, and I think I am going to invest my Social Security money in that or, in this case, their thrift savings money in that. Nobody can say, I hear the Singapore derivatives are a hot investment right now; I think I will go into that. It is all very much controlled, and what is interesting about that, as a result, there are no horror stories of janitors on Capital Hill losing everything that they have. So I think it is important that we look at the idea of putting to work what Einstein called the most powerful force in the universe, and that was this power of compound interest. As my colleagues know, there was this woman a couple years back, and I do not know if my colleagues remember the story, a woman by the name of Oseola McCarty, and she was from Hattiesburg, Mississippi, and yet she ended up on the front page of the New York Times, not for axe murdering a cousin or a nephew, but for a great reason, and that was she went down to the local university and said, I would like to help out. And she was a woman of very humble means. She had never made a lot of money over her lifetime. In fact, she had washed clothes over the bulk of her lifetime. So, therefore, the people at the university figured, yes, she is going to make us a cloth doily or a napkin, maybe something that she has handmade. Instead, she strokes them a check for about $100,000. They are flabbergasted, and the reporter there from the New York Times is asking: How in the world did you do this? And she says: Well, I just put a little bit away over a long period of time. Mr. Speaker, that power of compound interest is something that we ought to take advantage of when we look at cures for Social Security.

Mr. SANFORD. And, most significantly, I think they would keep in place the safety. The key issue with Social Security is safety of Social Security. If we were to draw a financial pyramid, the safest investments ought to be there at the foundation, if my colleagues will, of the investment, and Social Security is that foundation. So I think the most important thing is the safety, and I go again straight back to what Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, said: If we leave the money in Washington, political forces will probably find a way to get their hands on that money, which is what has been happening for the last 30 years.

Mr. SANFORD. So some of these looks at fixing the problem may fix the trust fund but make it so that somebody has to live 150 years to get their return. That is not the promise of Social Security. What I am hearing from constituents back home is Social Security taxes are the largest tax 73 percent of Americans make. Consequently what they are telling me is for me, it is the largest investment I will make. Therefore, you need to make this stuff count. Because some people say, you need to focus on additional savings outside of the roughly 10 percent of what you earn every day, every week and every month on Social Security. You need to make additional savings. They are saying, ``Mark, you can only squeeze but so much blood from a turnip. I am struggling between gas money, rent money, food money, education money. I don't have any other savings. Therefore, I've got to make Social Security count.'' So we have got to stay focused not on actuarial balance but on the promise of Social Security which is to make sure it is not a system that guarantees somebody a negative rate of return or a 1 percent rate of return but something higher than that.