News-Record.com

Maureen, what seniors need is more than the "edge-of-poverty" PITTANCE the current system provides. Even 1/2 of a person's payroll taxes invested in stocks and bonds for 30-40 yrs would provide a nice income and a nice, but modest standard of living for the "later years" rather than the penurious life-style now afforded. Other countries have successful programs such as this. Why is the leading economic power in the world such a laggard when it comes to how it provides for its elderly? Is is Because Bush is proposing it that the Dems oppose it? Couldnt be because of logic and the experience of others.

Mike Crouch

Mike,

What other countries have a successful privatized pension system?

Chile, Britain, Argentina? All of those privatization programs have run into serious problems. The UK "has the stingiest pension of any G8 nation" since privatization (source). And as for Chile -- do you really think we should look to Pinochet for inspiration?

Also -- what happens if the market crashes right as you retire? Under the Bush plan you don't get to leave your money in your private account and hope it goes back up -- you have to take what you have when you hit the magic age.

If wealthy people paid the same proportion of their income into Social Security as I do, there wouldn't be a crisis at all. This is about helping Wall Street and the very rich, not about helping you or me.

The proposed changes are great, it's the same thing Federal employees have had access to for years. It's a sound way to increase retirement income. I'm glad to see it finally happen.
President Roosevelt designed SS with the idea that it would be scaled down eventually with income from private investment accounts taking up the slack.
A few years ago the Democrats were on the bandwagon screaming about how SS was broke. Now that President Bush is poised to fix it, they're screaming that it's NOT broke. I think they just fight anything a Rebublican does, even if by fighting it they hurt more Americans.

Carrie,

The proposals are fluid, but here is what I heard described in regards to the possibility of the market crashing right before one retires. Essentially, the government would insure your account against catastrophes. So instead of the government ensuring that seniors have a minimal income when they retire, it would insure their accounts.

Also, what is being proposed with private accounts is not as much about ownership as the rhetoric implies. The plan is that, when one retires, one would be required to use one's private investment account to buy an annuity. Essentially a retiree turns over his principle to an insurance company who in turn pays the retiree a fixed sum every month. Of course, this presents a whole host of other problems including the fact that the insurance company will decide how much a month the retiree gets and it leaves open the possibility that insurance company failures would result in bankrupt seniors or the need for a government bailout.

The plans currently being discussed basically shift the government's role from one of insuring the income of individual retirees to insuring the solvencey of Wall Street funds and insurance companies on whom retirees will be required to rely.

Here is a solution to part of the problem with social security. Put the politicians on the same plan.

IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU ARE REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT!
KEEP IT GOING!!!!

200 8 Election Issue!!

GET A BILL STARTED TO PLACE ALL POLITICIANS ON SOC. SEC.
This must be an issue in "200 8 ". Please! Keep it going.

----------------------------------
SOCIAL SECURITY:
(This is worth reading. It is short and to the point.)

Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during election years.

Our Senators and Congresswomen do not pay into Social Security and, of course, they do not collect from it.

You see, Social Security benefits were not suitable for persons of their rare elevation in society. They felt they should have a special plan for themselves. So, many years ago they voted in their

own benefit plan .

In more recent years, no congressperson has felt the need to change it. After all, it is a great plan.

For all practical purposes their plan works like this:
When they retire, they continue to draw the same pay until they die.

Except it may increase from time to time for cost of living adjustments..

This is calculated on an average life span for each of those two Dignitaries. For example, Senator Byrd and Congressman White and their wives may expect to draw $7,800,000.00 (that's Seven Million, Eight-Hundred Thousand Dollars), with their wives drawing $275,000.00 during the last years of their lives.

Younger Dignitaries who retire at an early age, will receive much more during the rest of their lives.

Their cost for this excellent plan is $0.00. NADA....ZILCH....

This little perk they voted for themselves is free to them. You and I pick up the tab for this plan. The funds for this fine retirement plan come directly from the General Funds;

"OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK"!

>From our own Social Security Plan, which you and I pay (or have paid) into,-every payday until we retire (which amount is matched by our employer)-we can expect to get an average of $1,000 per month after retirement.

Or, in other words, we would have to collect our average of $1,000 monthly benefits for 68 years and one (1) month to equal Senator! Bill Bradley's benefits!

Social Security could be very good if only one small change were made.

That change would be to:
Jerk the Golden Fleece Retirement Plan from under the Senators and Congressmen. Put them into the Social Security plan with the rest of us
then sit back.....
and watch how fast they would fix it.

If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe good changes will evolve! .

How many people can YOU send this to? Better yet.....
How many people WILL you send this to??

Keep this going clear up thru the 2008 election!! We need to be heard

Plus--they get other perks like health insurance, cell phones, office decorating allowances, etc. for free--well, not for free; the taxpayers "lovingly" provide those perks. When they vote themselves raises in the middle of the night and the media gives little or no coverage of it; why do we as taxpayers allow that to happen? Why is there no huge outcry? Regardless of your party affiliation, are we so comfortable in our little world that we don't take the time to protest, or to even care? (And I'm not trying to point fingers, because I am guilty of this myself)

Having written the above post, perhaps I should rename myself, "Start Crying..." :)

This is all such a ridiculous debate. Someone tell me where in the enumerated powers of the federal government (the Constitution) does it say government shall manage/provide retirement? And don't say it's the "provide for the general welfare" clause. I would hardly call social insecurity providing for everyone's common welfare.

Rusty,

Where does it say in the constitution that the government will provide for an interstate highway system? It doesn't, yet the government does provide one. The constitution is more a document of limitations on government power than a laundry list of enumerated powers and responsibilities. A more proper question would be where is the government prevented from managing a retirement program by the constitution?

Some would argue that the interstate commerce clause gives Congress that power, although I wouldn't agree. I think you're right: that power is not given to Congress. But just because the government does other things that aren't enumerated, that doesn't mean social security is Constitutional. Most of what our government does is unconstitutional.

But I adamently refute your claim that the Constitution isn't a list of what government can do. It is, in fact, a list of enumerated powers. There are portions of the document, such as the Bill of Rights, which outline what government CAN'T do. But the body of the original text lists what the government can do. (Article 1 Section 8: Congress shall have power to... Article 2 Section 2: The President shall be commander in chief of the Army...he shall have power to... etc.)

The 10th amendment assures us that the document is a list of enumerated powers. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

That amendment pretty much sums it up. If it ain't listed in this document, it's not a power of the federal government. I don't see social security listed, hence it is unconstitutional.