Politics At Its Best!

Email | Feb 2, 2002

[brat]

>

Our Senators/Congressmen do not pay into Social > >Security, and, therefore they do not collect from it. > >Social Security benefits were not suitable for them. > >They felt they should have a special plan. > >Many years ago they voted in their benefit plan. In > >more recent years, no congress person 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 no matter how long they > >have been in office, they continue to draw their same > >pay until they die, except it may be increased from > >time to time by the cost-of-living adjustments.
> > > >

For example, former Senator Bill Bradley (New > >Jersey) and his wife may be expected to draw > >$7,900,000.00 over an average life span, with > >Mrs. Bradley drawing $275,000.00 > >during the last year of her life.
> > > >

Their cost for this excellent plan is "0," nada, > >zilch. This little perk they voted in for themselves > >free to them.
> > > >

You and I pick up the tab for this plan. Our tax > >dollars at work!
> > > >

Social Security, which you and I pay into every > >payday for our own retirement, with an equal > >amount matched by our employer, we can expect > >to get an average of $1,000 per month. Or, we > >would have to collect our benefits for 68 years > >and 1 month to equal the Bradley's benefits. > >Imagine for a moment that you could structure a > >retirement plan so desirable, a retirement plan > >that worked so well, that Railroad Employees, > >Postal Workers, and others who were not in the > >plan would clamor to be included.
> > > >

This is how good Social Security could be, if only > >one small change was made. That change would > >be to jerk the Golden Fleece Retirement Plan out > >from under the Senators/Congressmen. Put them > >into the Social Security plan with the rest of us.
> > > >

Watch how fast they fix it!!!
> > > >

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

Don't forget, our girl, Hillary Rodham Clinton, > >thanks to the infinite wisdom of New York State > >voters, now comes under this Congressional Retirement > >Plan.
> > > >

Talking about the Clinton's, it's common knowledge > >that, in order for her to establish NYS residency, > >they purchased a million + house in upscale > >Chappaqua, NY. Makes sense. Now, they are > >entitled to Secret Service protection for life. > >Still makes sense. Here is where it becomes > >interesting!! A residency had to be built in order > >to house the Secret Service agents.
> > > >

The Clinton's now charge the Secret Service rent > >for the use of said residence and that rent is just > >about equal to their mortgage payment, meaning > >that we, the tax payers, are paying the Clinton's > >mortgage and it's all perfectly legal.
> > > > > >

Is Everybody Happy????????? > >

[brat]

Consider sending this to your address book. It's not a bad thought......SS would be fixed in a hurry if they were dependent on it.

[dalebert]

Bump!

[VietVet]

Cancel government (i.e. taxpayer supported) pensions for Congressmen and Senators, and put them on Social Security?

Sounds so good to me, that why restrict it to Congress? No pensions for any elected or appointed officials! Let them contribute to FICA like the rest of us, and collect their Social Security, after age 67 for those in my age bracket, like the rest of us. Ought to be good enough for government employees, too. Why should they get a fat pension to which they have contributed not a cent?

[dread78645]

Consider sending this to your address book.

But delete the bit about the Secret Service rent.
(unless you want a hundred copies of the www.snopes2.com URL)

[zandtar]

Or better yet, eliminate it entirely. Sure we'd have a generation having to bite the bullet, but in the long run it would make the nation stronger. Besides, anyone who worked their entire life and was "counting" on social security to live upon is a fool. In it's present state, with the Baby Boomers hitting that age, and going to keep on hitting it in the years to come, they're selfishly putting the hammer to their own children to support a program that should have been eliminated years ago. As the working population decreases and the social security collectors increase, what's going to happen? Their own kids will get stuck paying more into it to support these people who made poor financial decisions during their life. Since Congress doesn't put it in a seperate fund, rather into the general fund, what you pay isn't protected.

A less painful alternative would be to start imposing income restrictions on collecting benefits. But that would be similar to a Democrat class-warefare strategy. Better just to eliminated it, and bite the bullet.

[Vinnie]

I believe this was changed a few years ago, and they now do pay into SS.

[VietVet]

Eliminate Social Security? Politically impossible, at the moment.

But Social Security will start eliminating itself about the time I retire, and the payments into it become less than benefit payments out. When that happens, the benefits will have to be paid out of the General Fund (i.e. income taxes, customs, excise taxes and other revenues). Either those benefits will have to be reduced, or the payments will be made in essentially worthless inflated money (which will also reduce the benefits, but the government will hope that no-one notices). At that point in time, it may be possible to persuade the govenment to offer the option of the retiree receiving a lump sum payment, equal to the amount he/she had deducted as FICA taxes over the course of his working life. That would end the system as it exists, with minimum disruption.