TONIGHT
E-mail a friendSen. Debbie Stabenow
original airdate March 3, 2005
A Michigan Democrat, Debbie Stabenow was the first woman elected from her state to the U.S. Senate. In her freshman term, she's a member of the Agriculture, Banking and Budget committees. Stabenow first won election to public office while in graduate school at Michigan State. She later served in the state House and Senate. She also spent two terms in Congress before deciding to make her Senate bid. As secretary of the Democratic caucus, Stabenow is the third-ranking Senate Democrat and assists in setting the Party's agenda and priorities.
Sen. Debbie Stabenow
Tavis: Senator Debbie Stabenow made history back in 2000 when she became the first woman to represent Michigan in the U.S. Senate. After just 4 years, she is now the senate's third-highest ranking Democrat. Among her committee assignments, the powerful senate budget committee. She joins us tonight from Washington. Senator, nice to have you on the program.
Sen. Debbie Stabenow: Well, good evening. It's good to be with you, Tavis.
Tavis: I'm delighted to have you on. Is the president's plan to reform Social Security tanking, and if it is, is that a good thing or a bad thing?
Stabenow: Well, the president's plan is a bad idea. We don't have one Democrat in the United States Senate that thinks it's a good idea. The American people think it's a bad idea. When you look at it, it cuts benefits, whether you would choose privatized accounts or not, and it also adds trillions of dollars to the national debt, and it doesn't add one day to the length of the solvency of the trust fund. So it's a bad idea. They need to stop talking about that. What they really are wanting to do is unravel Social Security as we know it. That's their plan. We're saying no. But once that's off the table, then we're willing to talk about the small fine-tuning that needs to be made so that 50 years from now it can continue to pay 100% of its benefits.
Tavis: Let's talk about that fine-tuning in just a second. First, though, there's word that the White House might be considering a compromise on this idea to reform Social Security. What do you know about that? What might the reform be? I mean the compromise be?
Stabenow: You know, Tavis, this is the most amazing thing. We don't have anything in writing yet. We keep hearing about the president's proposal and changes and compromises. I had an opportunity back in January to be at the White House with the president and the leaders of both parties from the house and the senate. We assumed after that that we would be getting something in writing. We have nothing in writing, and so we don't really know exactly what the details are of the president's plan. And the first thing--we know the parameters only because of the bits and pieces, but before he starts talking about compromising, it'd be nice if he laid out all the specifics, and then that would give us something to work on.
Tavis: Alan Greenspan, the Fed chairman, said Wednesday on Capitol Hill that the president's plan is not the only thing needed to reform Social Security. Tell me how you think persons like Mr. Greenspan and, indeed, Republicans like the Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert not necessarily lining up behind the president might have doomed this effort.
Stabenow: Well, you know, I think what's happened is there are such gaping holes in this plan. The privatization of Social Security doesn't do anything to solve the problems that are being talked about--the gap 40 or 50 years down the road. As I said, it adds to its benefit cuts. It adds trillions of dollars to the national debt. And we've set up--the Democrats in the senate--we asked some economists to come together and put together a calculator for us so that you can actually go to my web site or to Democrats.gov and put in your birth date and your average earnings you would estimate over your lifetime, and it can tell you immediately whether you win or lose, based on this proposal. And frankly, the younger you are, contrary to what the president has said, the worse you are. In fact, we just did today a press conference with Rock the Vote, with a whole group of young people, some that were born much later than you and I, and they put in their numbers, and they do much worse than you and I would as folks that will be retiring someplace down the road here.
Tavis: Let me ask you, like or loathe Karl Rove, everybody in Washington agrees he's a brilliant political strategist. Help me understand why, if Social Security is not going to be insolvent for another 40 or 50 years, why the White House would have expended this kind of political capital to have this put back in their face. Why go after trying to reform Social Security if it really isn't in dire straits?
Stabenow: Well, Tavis, that's a really good question, and I think there are 2 parts to the answer. One, I think the majority of the Republicans here view Social Security as just big government, and they didn't support it when it was created, and they would like very much to eliminate it. We view it as a great American success story. Prior to Social Security, half of older Americans were in poverty. Today it's about 10%. That's a huge success. Plus, it is there as disability, it's there as a life insurance policy with spouse and survivor benefits. So it's there in case of crisis, and we believe it's working really well. But there's another piece to that. Right now it costs about 1/2 a percent to administer Social Security. That's what you and I pay. And if we were to go to some privatized schemes and annuities and so on, folks would be paying maybe 10, maybe 15, maybe 20%, they're suggesting as an average, to have somebody else manage the money. Well, all those folks that would be managing the money are lining up here, and now, I'm told, there are 5 financial services lobbyists for every one senator. So those folks are highly motivated to change the system.
Tavis: I've heard a lot about and a lot from Democrats, respectfully, such as yourself, who have taken to task the president for trying to advance this notion of reforming Social Security. What I have not heard is a plan from the Democrats as to what they think ought to be done. Let me get back now, with that said, to your point earlier about the fine tuning that Democrats concede might need to be done. Am I not hearing a response from Democrats because they don't have one, or precisely because Democrats believe that the program is not in crisis, and therefore there's no need to have a plan right now?
Stabenow: Well, first of all, Tavis, there is not a crisis.
Tavis: Right.
Stabenow: The congressional budget office says that 100% of the benefits that we all pay in, by the way--this is all earned money. You and I work hard, we pay into the system, and it's there for us when we retire or have a financial crisis. But it's available right now 100% until 2052. After that, if we do nothing, it can pay 80% of its benefits. So there is a gap, and what we're saying is a couple of things. First of all, privatization just unravels Social Security. Bad idea. We ought to take it off the table. Secondly, then we ought to do what was done back in the eighties, which really is a bipartisan effort to sit down and look at some small changes that could have some big impacts. That really does need to be done in a bipartisan way. And so we don't want to be negotiating separately. We want to sit down with Republican colleagues and do that. But there's another piece, and that is we really do have a savings problem in this country. As a mother of 3 twenty-somethings that I say every day to them, "You ought to be trying to put just a little bit of money aside, even though you're still in college or getting off to that first job." We as Democrats are putting together some initiatives that will create more opportunities for people to save, and that's also very, very important.
Tavis: Debbie Stabenow, the first-ever woman elected to the U.S. Senate from the state of Michigan. The junior senator from that state, but the third-highest ranking Democrat now in the senate. Senator, nice to have you on. I look forward to talking more about this in the coming months and days. I think the story isn't gonna go anywhere just now, so I'm sure we'll get a chance to talk about it in the future.
Stabenow: Terrific. Thanks, Tavis.
Tavis: Nice to have you on. Up next on this program, actor Michael Chiklis, star of 'The Shield.' It's returning here in just a matter of days. Stay with us for that conversation coming up in just a moment.
Back to March 3, 2005