|All messages are published
with permission of the sender.
The general topic of this message is Social Security:
Contact Your Federal Officials
Sen. Sherrod Brown
Rep. Marcy Kaptur
Sen. Rob Portman
April 5, 2013
Social Security does not contribute to the deficit. There has been a surplus every year from 1982 to 2012. There is over $2.7 Trillion in the Social Security Trust Fund. The Payroll Tax Holiday (cut of one-third of employee's Social Security tax) during 2011 and 2012, sponsored by the President and Congress to stimulate the economy, was repaid by the government to the Trust Fund. This payment of money from the general fund to the Social Security Trust Fund is used by some to declare that the government is supporting Social Security, which is grossly untrue. It was a mistake to allow the cut to the Social Security tax for stimulating the economy. The President is going to insult our intelligence by saying his cut to Social Security benefits will strengthen the system. Reducing benefits provides the President with the sacrificial lamb to offer the Republicans in order to get "his" programs passed. President Obama is arrogant and narcissistic; he doesn't like Social Security because it wasn't his creation. He believes that Social Security retirees can get by on a smaller inflation factor each year by switching to a cheaper cut of meat and less expensive products. The only people that I know who could get by with a cheaper cut of meat are the rich folks (President Obama and Congress) and many of the people on food stamps. I've been to meat stores and have seen people buy a cart full of prime cuts of meat paying with food stamps.
When Baby Boomers graduated from high school, government aid wasn't available; many had to work their way through college. These people endured many recessions (1970's, 1980's and 1990's) and received little if any help from the government. If a Baby Boomer lost a job, he/she didn't sit around receiving aid from the government while waiting for the "perfect" job or comparable salary. They took any job, sometimes two, even if they were over qualified for the job, just to pay for the bills. These people didn't over-extend their finances by buying houses that were too expensive, buying new cars on credit, buying all the latest electronic gadgets.
Now, the government throws money at people to further their education. Many receive "additional" money to use for living expenses. Some go to college for as long as they can mainly for the extra money. Some run up expenses to $100,000, but then are only qualified for a $10.00 per hour job. There are people going back to school at age 58 to get a master's degree; in this economy, a trade school would be more worthwhile. College expenses have increased over the years. It seems that whenever government pays for something the price tag escalates. As we spend more and more on education, we lose standing with other countries. It's quite apparent that government spending on education does not need to be increased. People buy houses that they can't afford, borrow on the equity. They buy new cars and all the latest electronics. Then when there is a slight problem with the economy, they want someone else to pay off their credit card bills and pay on their mortgages. If they paid little or nothing as a down payment on their house, they walk away from it and leave it to the rest of us to deal with.
Baby Boomers have paid the most in Social Security taxes. The Social Security tax rate was increased in 1982. People who are retiring now paid 31 years of the highest tax rate. They also have to wait until they are 66 years old to take full retirement. I think it's disgraceful to cut Social Security benefits to the Baby Boomers. Also, President Obama made a campaign promise to not cut Social Security benefits to current retirees. He thinks that he is really slick. His promise was made in his first run for President. How were we supposed to know that he had changed his mind in his second run for President? Does he have any integrity?
Toledo , OH