Reply from Denny Rehberg on Social Security

[confludemocrat]

Anyone care to assess whether Rehberg is an original thinker on this topic or is spewing straight down-the-line WH and RNC bullshit?

Subject: Reply from Congressman Denny Rehberg
Date: Tuesday, February 8, 2005 3:58 PM
From: Congressman Denny Rehberg <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>

Thank you for contacting me regarding Social Security. It’s good to hear from you.

Social Security provides a critical source of income for retired and disabled workers. For one-third of Americans over the age of 65, Social Security benefits constitute 90% of their total income. While Social Security is safe for today’s seniors, the system will likely be bankrupt before many of today’s workers become eligible and may not exist at all for our grandchildren.

As you know, Social Security is a pay-as-you-go system with today’s workers paying to support today’s retirees. But each year, more retirees draw money from the system, and not enough workers support them. Currently, Social Security has a total unfunded obligation of more than $10 trillion.

In the 1950’s, approximately sixteen workers supported every one beneficiary. Today, there are about three – and eventually there will be only two workers to support each person on Social Security. In 2018, the government will begin to pay out more in Social Security benefits than it collects in payroll taxes -- and shortfalls then grow larger with each passing year. By 2042, when workers who are now in their mid-twenties begin to retire, the system likely will be bankrupt.

It is incumbent upon Congress to confront problems before they become a crisis, rather than pass them on to future generations. Unfortunately, the longer we wait to take action, the more difficult and expensive the changes will be.

Several plans have been proposed to reform Social Security, and I intend to study all proposals closely. But as Congress and the President address proposals to improve the program, we must work to preserve the current system for those receiving Social Security and those near retirement, so they experience no benefit changes. We must also be cautious of raising payroll taxes which would slow economic growth.

This nation must always strive to leave behind a better America for our children and grandchildren. If we address this problem now, we can leave them a more secure retirement for the future.

Thanks again for contacting me. For further information or to sign up for my e-newsletter, please visit my website at www.house.gov/rehberg. Keep in touch.

[havocmom]

1. How much $$ could we save by replacing Rehberg with a parrot?

At least the parrot would be interesting to look at while it repeats what it has been taught.

[UL_Approved]

4. Total stooge

This guy could be replaced with a manikin and a loudspeaker. I still don't understand why we keep the fuq'r.

[tsuki]

2. How do they figure "bankrupt?"

[Vincardog]

3. Walk the line RW WH RNC B$$ not a single original thought

ain't these folks lazy?

[confludemocrat]

6. Here's Burns' Reply on SS

What is he really talking about here? 401Ks are available already to many people.
Interesting about the issue of comparative overhead of TSPs with private mutual funds...
Isn't social security overhead even less than these rates given here? But he's onboard with the Bush SS wrecking crew it seems.

Thank you for you comments and concerns regarding the fate of
our Social Security System. I appreciate hearing from you and welcome
the opportunity to respond.

As you know, on February 2, 2005, President Bush indicated in
his State of the Union Address that Social Security reform would play a
large part in his second term agenda.

President Bush's vision for Social Security includes the
opportunity for younger workers to investment a portion of their Social
Security taxes into personal accounts. It is important to note that anyone
currently receiving or about to receive Social Security benefits will not
see any changes. However, those workers who do choose to invest some
portion of their money into a personal account have the potential for a
higher rate of return on their investments than the federal government
could provide. Individuals would not be forced into participating in
these personal accounts, and could opt for the traditional Social Security
benefit. In addition, the portion available to invest in these personal
accounts would be a small portion of the overall Social Security benefit.

Though there are many proposals for Social Security reform, one
of the most popular ideas is to model these personal accounts after the
Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) account system provided to Members of
Congress and other federal employees. By allowing all Americans the
opportunity to invest in five different funds, from bond funds to
international investments and common stock funds, individuals could
determine where to invest their money, while at the same time avoiding
the pitfalls of investing in just one stock. Unlike private mutual funds,
fees on TSP accounts are capped. According to one recent analysis, the
TSP program charged 11 cents in management for every $100 invested,
compared to 63 cents per $100 invested in private-sector mutual funds.

A personal account system modeled after the TSP is just one
option, and many more alternatives may be discussed in the coming
weeks and months. I look forward to hearing from you about these
proposals, and will be hosting several listening sessions across the state
with Senator Baucus and Congressman Rehberg, so that we may bring
the thoughts of all Montanans to the table.


Sincerely,
Conrad Burns
United States Senator

For future correspondent please refer to my website at
http://burns.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Home.Contact

[John Q. Citizen]

7. These listening sessions will be very important to stopping the

dismantling of SS by our Reps.

We need to find out when and where and do some organizing to get a big turnout.

I heard Pat Williams on his KUFM commentary tell a story about how FDR was about to send up his ideas on Social Security to congress and one of his aids told him that Montana had recently been the first and only state to set up a state citizens retirement system. FDR had the guy in charge of the MT system come to DC and they ended up using a lot of what MT had passed in the US system.

[sandnsea]

5. Josh Marshall

Has him as FIW, finger-in-the wind. I recognize Josh isn't in MT, but at the same time, neither is Denny. Is MT buying into this SS bullshit? Do you think you guys could take him out over SS??? Ooh, gives me thrills and chills to think of it!

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/