Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Les H who wrote (25868)	1/4/1999 4:33:00 PM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

>> Financial misappropriation is the proper name for the Social Security trust. Getta loada this: Reforming Social Security Federal lawmakers have a very, very special offer for some 5 million teachers, law-enforcement officials and other state and local employees around the country. They want to give those employees a chance to enjoy all the benefits of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's greatest New Deal legacy, the Social Security program. In fact, lawmakers consider this offer so thoughtful and generous, they may make it one that employees can't refuse by passing a law making their participation mandatory. State employee groups have responded with all the enthusiasm of German soldiers being dispatched to the Russian front. Said Robert Scully, executive director of the National Association of Police Organizations Inc, in a letter last month to President Clinton, a "proposal of mandatory Social Security taxes for public safety officers is one of the greatest and most detrimental attacks on public safety labor organizations and their respective members." Said a spokesman for the 40,000-member United Teachers of Los Angeles, "[L]et's call this what it really is -- a bailout of the Social Security trust fund on the backs of school teachers and other state and local workers who did not create the problem." Wrote the heads of five government retirement associations in Ohio, "The anger among millions of working adults and retirees and subsequent political backlash that will likely follow if mandatory coverage is imposed is disturbing to contemplate." It's not hard to understand their anger. Mr. Roosevelt's grand plan to reduce dependence in old age has been reduced to a pyramid scheme on the verge of collapse. Even those for whom the system is "working" -- baby boomers who will get back little more than they paid in, even less for those who follow -- could have made sounder investments buying swampland in New Jersey. This is the retirement system that President Clinton and congressional leaders now say they want to save. The fact is that the only way to provide real social security is to begin to allow people to save for their own retirement. There are a host of plans on the table allowing just that. Impeachment proceedings or no, lawmakers in both houses should move expeditiously to take them up. Senate Finance Committee Chairman William Roth, the panel where Social Security Reform is likely to begin, has a plan that would leave the existing system untouched but would use budget surpluses to create personal retirement accounts for all working Americans. Sens. Pat Moynihan and Bob Kerry propose to divert 2 percent of payroll taxes into personal accounts but would allow for increases in both the taxable wage base and tax rate. Sen. Rod Grams would, among other things, allow workers to shift 10 percent of their payroll taxes to individually held personal retirement accounts and would finance the transition by cutting federal spending 5 percent across the board. Still another plan, which has the advantage of being politically possible, comes from Sens. Judd Gregg and John Breaux and Reps. Jim Kolbe and Charles Stenholm. It would allow workers to put 2 percent of payroll taxes into personal accounts modeled on the Federal Thrift Plan. It also guarantees the social "safety net" by stipulating that anyone who works for 40 years would receive a benefit equivalent to at least 100 percent of the poverty level. Exactly where the administration is on all this isn't clear. Mr. Clinton has so far refused to put up his own plan for consideration, notwithstanding offers from Republicans to introduce it as is. Republicans are naturally leery of going ahead without him for fear that he will use any reform proposal to attack them for doing away with Social Security. One would hope he would not want his legacy to include that of Social Security demagogue. Besides, the president himself has acknowledged that one way to shore up the system without tax increases or benefit reductions would be to "take advantage of the higher return on investments" in private markets, although he didn't say what form that investment would take or who would make it. Lawmakers shouldn't wait for him to make up his mind. Mr. Roth should move on to do the "people's business," as the president calls it, by considering Social Security reform. If the existing program isn't good enough for state and local government employees -- and it isn't -- it isn't good enough for anyone. washtimes.com

To: Les H who wrote (25868)	1/4/1999 5:21:00 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

My understanding is that the wealthy SS recipients are yelling the loudest with regards to the "its not a tax" theme. They see the possibility of their windfall recinded if SS is redefined to only serve those that need it. So I wouldnt really call it a "squeaky wheel" phenomenon. BTW I disagree with you in that I think you could fund all kinds of needy people with SS, extended care, those on disabilities etc and everything would be just fine if you took the 'well to do' off the SS roster. I say, those that need SS and Medicare should get full benefits. Those that don't, get their money back with some nominal interest payments. That way, they cant say they were cheated. BTW this would mean most homeowners in California would not be eligible for full benefits since the average house is 500K+. Michelle PS Imo Kerry who is a democrat has done the most to educate and champion true reform of Social Security.