The Honorable Alan Simpson
United States Senator (retired)
1201 Sunshine Avenue
Cody, Wyoming 82414
Dear Senator Simpson,
Your plan would begin pulling apart our Social Security system brick by brick. Unfortunately, you seem to think that bigotry and bullying will silence those of us who are trying to educate the public about the devastating cuts in your plan. No amount of ageism, however, can hide the harm your plan would cause for Americans -- young and old, alike.
That is why we ask that you stick to your word and have an open and public discussion with young people, who would be hit hardest by the drastic cuts in your plan, and we have started a petition to gather the support of others who think you shouldn't go back on your word.
A bigot is someone who stereotypes an entire group of people with a pejorative label as a way of advancing his or her own views and prejudices. An ageist, a term coined by the late Dr. Robert Butler, the founding director of the National Institute on Aging, is someone who directs that prejudice against older people.
Referring to older Americans as "geezers," calling an entire generation, the "greediest generation," and consistently using the term "Greedy Geezer," as you have done, are ageist, bigoted and undermining of human dignity. That you are over age 65 does not minimize the harm or excuse you.
Your resort to this type of language suggests that you are afraid to acknowledge that your adversaries are fighting for young people. As the young experts who wrote you show, the Bowles-Simpson proposal cuts the benefits of some younger workers more than if Congress took no action whatsoever. Its change to the benefit formula fundamentally changes the structure of Social Security (PDF), eroding the fairness of the program, an attribute that has made the program successful and popular for 76 years.
Your decision to back out of a debate with one of the young experts further suggests that you understand that your Social Security proposals would, if enacted, begin to pull apart our Social Security system, which has served younger and older Americans for generations. We can understand why you might be afraid to debate young people. You would be unable to call those adversaries "greedy geezers" and might be forced to join issue on the facts, where you would lose.
If you have confidence in your proposal, we urge you to stop name-calling and keep your word to have a public discussion with those young experts who have studied your proposal carefully.
Sincerely,
Nancy Altman and Eric Kingson
Co-directors, Social Security Works
Follow Nancy Altman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/NoSocSecCuts
Richard (RJ) Eskow: Social Security and Medicare: Behind the Numbers and the Spin
Eric Kingson and Nancy Altman: An Open Letter About Alan Simpson's Recent Comments
http://reason.com/archives/2012/07/23/generational-warfare/1
It was popular because it was giving dollars of benefits away for dimes. The problem is that we are the children who are expected to make-up the difference.
According to AJ Altmeyer the man who was chariman of the Social Security Board in 1944 payroll taxes need to be tripled to make the system sound. Instead of raising taxes, Congress raised benefits. He said that futue payroll taxes would need to be higher to pay for the
Plus social "un"security is very risky. Many people don't get a dime of what they put in back.
People need to make their own choices to how they want to retire. It's our responsibility, not the governments. Privitize or just end this awful program.
Let me count the ways.
1. Alan Simpson, a retired Senator, who's only done desk work his whole life, is not reflective of your average senior citizen.
2. Alan Simpson is the wrong person to lead on this issue, because of his biased views about seniors.
3. Alan Simpson should never have been chosen to co-chair the President's Commission on Budget deficits.
4. The commission had no official recommendations because the co-chairs plan came in after the official due date and it didn't have the requisite votes to pass.
5. It wrongly included ss into the chairs recommendations, when ss does not add to the deficit or the growing federal debt.
6. The chairs failure to advocate for the elimination of the Bush tax cuts, the substantial cutting of the nations national security, war spending, the real budget buster and the elimination of the welfare for rich people let everybody know whose side they are on.
7. It was a mistake for the President to form this commission when he couldn't get the Congress to go along.
8. And it is a mistake to focus on austerity, as economies of Europe, S. America, Asia and Africa have proven.
This commission's sole purpose is to try to impose for the sake of the banksters fiscal austerity on the American people, the very same banksters who had the gall to take our welfare, break our laws, shower themselves with bonuses and spit in our faces.
There is an understood social contract which says that during my work life, I pay in to social security. It comes right out of my check before I get my hot little hands on it. I think about, but only to the point that I see that it comes out. Those who came before me ( like my parents) paid in to it for those before them. Now it is my honor and my turn. So please, do not deny me the honor to do my duty as a citizen of my country and not pay in to the system for the next generation that will come after me. Bust also do not deny me the sacred honor of continuing to pay in to the system which is now being dispensed to those who defended this country against some of the most heinous threats ever conceived by man with grace and aplomb. They are retired now and earned their turn to receive social security. I am earning mine now. My time is soon. No changing the deal at the last minute, Simpson. That would be like asking the 82nd Airborne to please return all of the medals, we changed our minds or sorry Big Red one, we need to cut cost and privatize your previous honors. Just back away.
Keep the lower donation rate now in place, get rid of the cap, include all wages, dividends, and investment income. Pay a better benefit to those who pay more. No means testing. This ensures the solvency of the program and allows the gov't time to pay back the Trust Fund. Get with it Simpson. Not all of us in Wyoming are rich ranchers like yourself.
You want to remove the cap. Today the system is highly progressive, and this will make it worse. A high wage earner can get as little as 1/10th of the expected benefits per dollar of contribution as a low-wage worker. My source is SSA's moneys-worth studies. Removing the cap will only make these figures worse.
SS is already means-tested and has been since 1983 with a test on other income that affects up to 1/3rd of retirees.
At this point, there is no reason to think that the government will not repay SS. While some people call them "worthless IOUs", the fact is that these assets are selling at historic highs not anywhere close to zero.
The redemtion of the T-Bills for the SS Trust Fund is a function of the health of our economy and the voting of our citizenry.