Laurence K. Kotlikoff Quotes

What should we do with this projected surplus? I have a simple four-word answer: Save Social Security first.

Social Security is on the books. We’ll pay for it as long as we have money or can borrow it.

Unless we get entitlement costs under control, Social Security will inevitably square off against national security.

We do ourselves a disservice when some of us cave to the myth that Social Security somehow drives the deficit.

I think we need to make sure that we are putting Social Security on a sustainable path. It's absolutely something that the federal government is going to be involved in, in the future.

... the Social Security trust fund is not spare money; it is spoken for.

One of the reasons that Social Security is in so much trouble is that the only funding stream comes from people who get a wage. The people who get wages is declining dramatically. Most of the income in this country is made by people at the top who get dividends and - and capital gains.

Despite the state of denial exhibited by most Democrats, Americans all across the nation acknowledge that changes are necessary to preserve Social Security for today's younger workers.

No matter how you cut it, this real debate on personal accounts is about the legitimacy of Social Security; it's not about the solvency of Social Security.

I do not believe that the Social Security system is in crisis.

I believe that as a nation we must have a bipartisan discussion about how to best preserve and protect Social Security for our seniors and for future generations of Americans.

One poll shows that by 61 percent to 29 percent Americans under 40 say that Social Security needs to be fixed.

Social Security's future has gotten worse, and each year we delay reform adds to the cost we are pushing off onto our children.

The Social Security Trust Fund should not be trusted and it is not funded.

To deal with entitlements we must either raise taxes, cut benefits, or borrow inordinate amounts of money.

The Republicans opposed Social Security in 1933 when President Roosevelt first put it in. They didn’t want it then and they do not want it now. I would not want anyone’s grandmother to be reading the Wall Street stock market pages to figure out how she might earn more than the staff of the Social Security Administration.

We ought to deal with Social Security in a separate conversation that is not part of deficit reduction.

The debate over Social Security should not be about how much we can cut from the program in order to balance the federal budget. The debate over Social Security should not be about raising the retirement age or limiting benefits. The debate over Social Security should be about retirement security.

In normal times, at the beginning of each month, the federal government makes a cash advance to the Social Security Trust Fund called the 'normalized tax transfer,' in an amount equal to the estimated payroll taxes for the coming month.

If you can't even acknowledge that you have to fix Social Security, that's not a very good starting point.

I know that plenty of folks have issues with Social Security, but I'd urge them to confront it on its own terms. Calling it a Ponzi scheme is misleading and does more to cloud the issue than it does to illuminate it. And yes, I do know that unless changes are made, the current system is unsustainable. But that doesn't mean it's fraud.

Specifically, I am concerned about the long-term condition of Social Security. I am committed to ensuring that current beneficiaries and those nearing retirement face no reduction in benefits, while preserving this vital program for future generations.

It is time for the general fund to pay the Social Security fund back.

We need to take steps to strengthen and mend Social Security so that its promise of a secure retirement is just as real for seniors in the future as it is today.

But there is a need to explore ways we can preserve the promise of Social Security for future generations.