Letter to the Editor



Published:

To the editor: Investing in the stock market can pay a higher return, but it’s not a sure thing. That’s why people are willing to forgo the potential to score big in the stock market in return for knowing that their hard-earned savings are safe. Economists and the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office recognize that too. That’s why they won’t compare the “risk-less” rate of return that Social Security provides to the “risky” rate of return provided by private accounts. It’s comparing apples and oranges. Reform of existing legislative issues infers that the old legislative rules are not working. Social Security is working. Changing the rules of age limits, amounts of moneys to be received and the ability of the hard-working American to retire with some security are not the answer and is unethical. I have worked for one company that offered a retirement plan. I have worked for over 12 businesses that have not provided any retirement yet these companies have profited from my help. They let me go when it was not convenient for them to pay me. The one company that did provide me with help even gave a matching fund to what I put in. This is the total savings I have been able to accrue in my career to date. This is the kind of relationship that needs to be constructed as a reform between government, businesses and employees. The other companies I have worked for were all short-sighted, unbalanced companies looking for the fast buck, to my dismay. The Congressional Budget Office has stated that Social Security is in surplus, and will have enough money for nearly another 50 years. And even after that, the tax dollars from workers cover about 80 percent of the cost of the benefits retirees were promised. The GOP plan to fix the “crisis” would guarantee a 46 percent cut in benefits! The cure is worse than the disease. This appears to be a power struggle within our government and not about the constituents’ needs for government reforms. All Americans are willing to pay the costs of maintaining a secure, functional and progressive government. This Social Security reform is not any of these. Paul Kelly Stratham Edit ModuleShow Tags