Summary
Pence’s Social Security positions would be harmful to seniors:
Pence’s Medicare positions would be harmful to seniors:
Mike Pence Was In Favor Of Letting People Divert Part Of Their Social Security Funding Into Individual Savings Accounts. According to The Palladium-Item, ‘But he did say he was in favor of letting people divert part of their Social Security funding into ‘what is called privatization, but which I prefer to call individual savings accounts.’’ [Palladium-Item, 4/3/02]
Pence Op-Ed: Pence Said Including Personal Savings Accounts For Younger Workers Was “Worthy Of Vigorous Conservative Support.” In a Human Events Online op-ed Rep. Mike Pence wrote, “First, House conservatives must rally support in Congress and the country for President Bush’s agenda where it conforms to the ideals of limited government. The good news is that all of the ‘Big Three’ items that the President outlined last week are worthy of vigorous conservative support. These include: Modernizing Social Security by introducing the option of personal savings accounts for younger Americans.” [Human Events Online, 11/15/04]
Pence: “I’m A Strong Supporter Of Making The New Deal Into A Better Deal With Personal Savings Accounts.” While appearing on CEO Wire, Pence said, “I think it’s important that we reform Social Security. I’m a strong supporter of -- of making the -- the New Deal into a better deal [...] with personal savings accounts.” [CEO Wire, 1/18/07]
Pence, 2000: “By Permitting Workers To Invest Even A Small Part Of Payroll Taxes Into The Stock Market, Workers Could Anticipate A Return Of 12% Based Upon The Performance Of The Stock Market.” According to Mike Pence For Congress, “• Congress should inform the American people that the average return on dollars invested in Social Security through payroll taxes amounts to 2.13% over the lifetime of the worker. By permitting workers to invest even a small part of payroll taxes into the stock market, workers could anticipate a return of 12% based upon the performance of the stock market according to Standard & Poors 500 Stock Index of the past 40 years.” [Mike Pence For Congress via Wayback Machine, 2000]
Pence Said The Transition To Privatization Would Be “Costly” But “Necessary.” According to a transcript of Crossfire, “BEGALA: Here’s why. Because the president hasn’t leveled with them. It costs, according to that same Congressional Budget Office study, an independent, nonpartisan group, whose head is appointed by the Republicans, who run Congress, said that to take Mr. Bush’s plan and put it into effect would cost $2 trillion immediately. Where is that $2 trillion going to come from, Congressman? (CROSSTALK) PENCE: Well, I’ll tell you what, Paul. The investment in the transition that would be necessary, you’re absolutely correct. It would be necessary. If we allowed younger Americans to invest a portion of their payroll taxes in Social Security, it would be costly. BEGALA: Where is it going to come from? (CROSSTALK) PENCE: Paul, it pales in comparison to the John Kerry plan, which is to do nothing, except make more empty promises about Social Security.” [Transcript – Crossfire, 10/19/04]
Pence, 2007: “I Do Not Support Privatizing Social Security.” According to Office Of Congressman Mike Pence, “I believe Social Security is a covenant between the American government and American retirees. Our nation’s senior citizens paid into the Social Security system their whole life with the promise that it would be there for them when they retire. I intend to keep this promise of financial security not only to our current seniors, but also to their children and grandchildren. I do not support privatizing Social Security. Social Security is a cherished program that has kept millions of Americans out of poverty. With 77 million Americans set to retire as part of the baby boom generation, there simply aren’t enough workers to support the growing number of retirees. We can and must do better for our nation’s seniors. I have joined other Republicans in Congress in offering a number of personal account proposals that are completely voluntary and wholly safe.” [Office Of Congressman Mike Pence via Wayback Machine, 2007]
2012: Pence Voted Against The FY 2013 Democratic Budget, Which Stated That Social Security Privatization Should Be Rejected. In March 2012, Pence voted to oppose preventing social security privatization as part of the Democrats’ proposed budget resolution covering FY 2013 to 2022. According the text of the budget resolution, “It is the policy of this resolution that Social Security should be strengthened for its own sake and not to achieve deficit reduction. Because privatization proposals are fiscally irresponsible and would put the retirement security of seniors at risk, any Social Security reform legislation shall reject partial or complete privatization of the program. ” The vote was on an amendment to the House budget resolution replacing the entire budget with the House Democrats’ proposed budget; the amendment failed by a vote of 166 to 259. [House Vote 150, 3/29/12; House Budget Committee Democrats, 4/15/11]
2011: Pence Voted To Support The Privatization Of Social Security. In April 2011, Pence voted to oppose preventing social security privatization as part of the Democrats’ proposed budget resolution covering FY 2012 to 2021. According the text of the budget resolution, “It is the policy of this resolution that Social Security should be strengthened for its own sake and not to achieve deficit reduction. Because privatization proposals are fiscally irresponsible and would put the retirement security of seniors at risk, any Social Security reform legislation shall reject partial or complete privatization of the program. ” The vote was on an amendment to the House budget resolution replacing the entire budget with the House Democrats’ proposed budget; the amendment failed by a vote of 166 to 259. [House Vote 276, 4/15/11; Congressional Record, 4/15/11]
2012: Pence Voted To Raise The Social Security Eligibility Age To 70. In March, 2012 Pence voted to support raising the Social Security eligibility age, as part of the Republican Study Committee’s proposed budget resolution covering fiscal years 2013 to 2022. According to the Republican Study Committee, “Specifically, we propose slowly increasing full retirement age to 70 years. This would be accomplished by increasing the full-retirement age in two‐month‐per‐ year increments for workers currently under 55 years old. Specifically, this proposal would increase the full retirement age to 66 years and 2 months starting with those born in 1958. Then, the full retirement age would increase in two‐month increments per year, reaching 67 for those born in 1963 or later. For those born in 1978 or later, the full retirement age would remain at 70 years old.” The vote was on an amendment to the House budget resolution replacing the entire budget with the RSC’s proposed budget; the amendment failed by a vote of 136 to 285. [House Vote 149, 3/29/12; Republican Study Committee, 3/12]
2003: Pence Voted Against Creating The Part D Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit. In December 2003, Pence voted against a bill that, according to Congressional Quarterly, “create[d] a prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients. Beginning in 2006, prescription coverage [was] available through private insurers to seniors paying a monthly premium estimated at $35 in 2006. Those enrolled in the plan […] cover[ed] the first $250 of annual drug costs themselves and 25 percent of all drug costs up to $2,250. Benefits […] stop[ped] until out-of-pocket drug costs exceeded $3,600, after which a beneficiary would cover 5 percent of all costs. Low-income seniors [were] eligible for discounts on premiums, deductibles and co-payments. If no private plans bid in a region, the government [offered] a fallback prescription drug plan. In 2004 and 2005, beneficiaries [were] able to use drug discount cards to reduce prices by up to 25 percent. Medicare payments to managed care plans […] increase[d] by $14.2 billion over 10 years. A pilot project […] beg[an] in 2010 in which Medicare would compete with private insurers to provide coverage for hospital and doctor costs in six metropolitan areas for six years. Drugs from Canada [were] eligible for importation only if the Health and Human Services Department determines there is no safety risk and the move would save consumers money. Beginning in 2007, Part B premiums […] increase[d] for some higher-income recipients. Certain individuals under 65 years of age, as well as Medicare recipients, [were] able to establish health-savings accounts to pay for health care services not covered by their insurance policy.” The House adopted the conference report on the bill by a vote of 220 to 215. After the Senate also agreed to the conference report, the bill was sent to the president, who signed it into law. [House Vote 669, 11/22/03; Congressional Quarterly, 11/22/03; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1]
Pence Op-Ed: “While The Need For Some Type Of [Prescription Drug] Benefit Is Real, The Need For A Universal Benefit Is Not.” In a The Indianapolis Star letter to the editor Mike Pence wrote, “While the need for some type of benefit is real, the need for a universal benefit is not. At present, 76 percent of seniors have some form of prescription drug coverage, and the average senior spends less than $999 per year in out-of-pocket expenses on medications.” [Indianapolis Star, 6/26/03]
Pence Op-Ed: “Adding A Universal Drug Benefit To Medicare May Have Unintended, Negative Consequences.” In a The Indianapolis Star letter to the editor Mike Pence wrote, “Adding a universal drug benefit to Medicare may have unintended, negative consequences.” [Indianapolis Star, 6/26/03]
Pence Op-Ed: “The Most Ominous Consequence Of A Universal Drug Benefit Could Be That It will Usher In The Beginning Of Socialized Medicine In America.” In a The Indianapolis Star letter to the editor Mike Pence wrote, “The most ominous consequence of a universal drug benefit could be that it will usher in the beginning of socialized medicine in America.” [Indianapolis Star, 6/26/03]
| Year | Bill |
| 2011 | House Vote 277, 4/15/11; CBO, 4/5/11 |
| 2011 | House Vote 275, 4/15/11; Republican Study Committee, 4/7/11; Huffington Post, 4/15/11 |
| 2012 | House Vote 149, 3/29/12; Republican Study Committee, 3/12 |
| 2012 | House Vote 151, 3/16/12; CRS Report #R42441, 3/29/12; Congressional Actions, H.Con.Res. 112 |
| Year | Bill |
| 2009 | House Vote 191, 4/2/09; House Budget Committee, 4/1/09 |
| 2011 | House Vote 277, 4/15/11; CRS Report #R41767, 4/13/11 |
| 2011 | House Vote 276, 4/15/11; Congressional Record, 4/15/11 |
| 2011 | House Vote 275, 4/15/11; Republican Study Committee, 4/7/11; Huffington Post, 4/15/11 |
| 2012 | House Vote 149, 3/29/12; Republican Study Committee, 3/12 |
| 2012 | House Vote 150, 3/29/12; House Budget Committee Democrats, 3/26/12 |
| 2012 | House Vote 151, 3/16/12; House Budget Committee, 3/20/12; Congressional Actions, H.Con.Res. 112 |
Pence Termed Programs Such As Medicare And Medicaid “The Greatest Threat There Is To Those Under The Age Of 40.” According to Decatur Daily Democrat, “‘No one 55 or older will experience any change’ to their current Medicare coverage, Pence said. ‘But Medicare is scheduled to go broke in nine years, and this (suggested GOP approach) will preserve the program for future generations.’ Pence termed entitlement programs such as Medicare and Medicaid as ‘the greatest threat there is to those under the age of 40.’ He said Medicare and Medicaid in their current forms ‘threaten the economic vitality of future generations’ and are currently ‘fraught with waste, fraud and abuse.’ He recommended states be put in charge of Medicaid programs.” [Decatur Daily Democrat, 4/28/11]
Paul Ryan’s Plan Would “End Medicare As We Know It” By Replacing It With Private Plans. According to Newark Star-Ledger Editorial, “The result is that Americans of limited means get pounded under Ryan’s plan. At a time when wages for the average American are dropping and salaries for the rich are skyrocketing, Ryan would deepen the divide. He would end Medicare as we know it and replace it with a menu of private plans. New enrollees would get help paying the premiums, but Washington’s contribution would be capped at a rate that is unlikely to keep up with rising health costs. The modest cost-containment provisions in Obama’s health reform would be rescinded.” [Newark Star-Ledger Editorial, 4/7/11]
The Ryan Plan Would Double Out-Of-Pocket Costs For Seniors While Cutting Spending On Medicaid. According to Sun-Sentinel, “The Ryan budget plan would cut federal spending on Medicaid, which provides health care for the poor, and begin distributing money by block grant to states. The plan would do away with Medicare’s direct payment for health care for seniors, replacing it with a voucher system in which recipients choose private insurers. The Congressional Budget Office found that part of the plan, which would take effect in 2022, could nearly double out-of-pocket costs for seniors.” [Sun-Sentinel, 4/16/11]
Ryan Plan Would Increase Prescription Drug Costs By Reopening The Doughnut Hole In Drug Coverage. According to the National Journal, “But the proposal would also repeal last year’s health care law, which means reopening a coverage gap in Medicare’s prescription-drug benefit that the statute closed. The gap, commonly called the “doughnut hole,” requires seniors to pay 100 percent of any prescription costs after the annual total reaches $2,840 and until it hits $4,550. Those who spend more or less have at least three-quarters of the costs covered. Under the 2010 health law, Medicare will pay 7 percent of the cost of generic drugs and 50 percent on name-brand pharmaceuticals; by 2020, the doughnut hole will be closed.” [National Journal, 6/6/11]
Mike Pence Suggested Making Cuts To Programs Like Social Security And Medicare To Pay For The Rebuilding Of The Gulf Cost After Hurricane Katrina. In an editorial The Star Press wrote, “Paying the tremendous cost of rebuilding the Gulf Coast in the wake of Hurricane Katrina could come from entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare, Congressman Mike Pence suggested Friday.” [Star Press, 9/17/05]
September 2005: Pence Warned Against Making Hurricane Katrina Relief “A Catastrophe Of Debt For Our Children And Grandchildren.” According to a press release from the office of Rep. Pence, “U.S. Congressman Mike Pence delivered the following speech on the House floor this morning calling for fiscal discipline in hurricane relief: ‘Katrina breaks my heart. When I consider its tragic aftermath, the ancient parable comes to mind: ‘and the rains descended, and the flood came, and the winds blew and beat against the house and it fell with a great crash.’ ‘For most American families, when a tree falls on your house you tend to the wounded, you rebuild and then you figure out how you are going to pay for it. ‘Later today, Congress will continue the work of funding the relief and recovery from Hurricane Katrina, and well we should, by speeding more than $50 billion to FEMA and other agencies. ‘But as we tend to the wounded, as we begin to rebuild, let us also do what every other American family would do in like circumstances and expects this Congress to do: Let’s figure out how we are going to pay for it. ‘Congress must insure that a catastrophe of nature does not become a catastrophe of debt for our children and grandchildren.’” [Press Release –Office of Rep. Pence, 9/8/05]
2005: Pence Voted For A Package Of Changes To Medicare, Medicaid And Other Federal Spending Programs That Cut Net Federal Spending By $39.7 Billion Over Five Years. In December 2005, Pence voted for a bill that, according to roughly $12.7 billion from student loans program, $1.5 billion from aid to states to enforce child support payments and $4.8 billion from Medicaid. The bill [] provide[d] $2.1 billion in hurricane assistance, authorize[d] an additional $1 billion for low-income home energy assistance and provide[d] $7.3 billion to avoid a scheduled Medicare reimbursement cut to physicians. It [] phase[d] in, starting Oct. 1, 2007, the repeal of a law that sen[t] anti-dumping trade penalties to aggrieved companies instead of to the U.S. Treasury.” The House agreed to the conference report on the bill by a vote of 212 to 206; however, the Senate effectively stripped three provisions from the conference report because they violated Senate rules, and sent the amended legislation back to the House for approval. Following House approval of the amended bill, it was sent to the president, who signed it into law. [House Vote 670, 12/19/05; Congressional Quarterly, 12/19/05; Congressional Actions, S. 1932]