KRC Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 The humorous non-responses/form letters from my Congresscritters to the Dubai Ports fiasco has made we want to continue the fun with them. Here is the letter I sent to my "representatives" regarding Social Security Reform. Every election cycle, Congressional representatives talk about wanting to reform Social Security. After the election, it becomes very apparent that the talk was just that: talk. Proposals may make it into committee, but they never seem to make it out of committee. That needs to change. There are various statistics and reports on when, exactly, the Social Security System will go bankrupt if nothing is done. There is no question that the system is in trouble, but my “representatives” have yet to find a solution. One camp supports private accounts, while another camp wants to keep the current system. These camps cannot seem to find a compromise. I propose: Why not do both? You can give workers the option of both systems. Here is how it would work: -Every year, employees fill out a W-2 form. An additional checkbox will be added to the form, allowing the employee to select whether they want their withholding to be sent to the government (Social Security) or to a private account with the private accounts being set up exactly like 401k accounts (people do not seem to have a problem with this setup at their current place of employment, so there should be no reason why they cannot adjust to this system in place of the Social Security system). An additional benefit to this system is that this method will give the employee the option to contribute to both, if they desire. One year, the withholdings can be sent to the government. The next year, the withholdings can be sent to a private account. -You are going to create a deficit with this system, but you will create a deficit with any real reformation of the Social Security System. This is due to the fundamental flaw of the system, whereby current employees pay for current retirees. To counteract this deficit, the eligibility age will need to be increased. When the system was created, the eligibility age was determined based on life expectancy. The system has not kept pace with the increased life expectancies. This needs to be corrected. To make up the rest of the deficit, Congress will need to cut spending. With the unbelievable amount of wasteful spending that currently plagues our federal budget, there is no reason why Congress cannot make cuts without effecting current services. Raising taxes is not the answer. It is nothing more than a bandage to hide the problem. As a member of Congress, you need to act. The longer you wait, the more it will cost the taxpayers of this country to fix the problem. Regards, Ken Crippen Registered Voter This was sent to: Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick (R-PA) Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) Let's see how they respond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted October 18, 2006 Author Share Posted October 18, 2006 Just to be fair, I also sent a modified copy to the challengers in the election: Bob Casey (D) Patrick Murphy (D) It will be interesting to see how the two parties answer the e-mail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 Just to be fair, I also sent a modified copy to the challengers in the election: Bob Casey (D) Patrick Murphy (D) It will be interesting to see how the two parties answer the e-mail. 809378[/snapback] I agree. Definitely waiting to see the "responses" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 Just to be fair, I also sent a modified copy to the challengers in the election: Bob Casey (D) Patrick Murphy (D) It will be interesting to see how the two parties answer the e-mail. 809378[/snapback] I'm sure it won't sound anything at all like Arthur Carlson's challenger: I have a plan that is simple yet complex and I feel strongly both ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 I'm sure it won't sound anything at all like Arthur Carlson's challenger: I have a plan that is simple yet complex and I feel strongly both ways. 809386[/snapback] Wait, he's running against KerrY? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 I don't know anything about the Congressional candidates. But as a former Pennsylvanian I am familiar with both Senators and Casey. Here's their responses Specter: Well if you look into the writ of habeus corpus in the case of Holyfield v Tyson you will see that Chewbacca is in fact a Wookie...Translation: Glad I'm not up for re-election this year Casey: BushBad! FoleyPedophile...Translation: Daddy, will you read the letter from my pen pal? Santorum: No response...Translation: Too busy packing up his U-Haul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted October 19, 2006 Author Share Posted October 19, 2006 Santorum was the first to "reply:" October 19, 2006 Dear Mr. Crippen: Thank you for contacting me regarding your concerns about the Social Security program. I understand and agree that Social Security has been an extremely successful program that has protected millions of Americans from a life of poverty, and it should continue to do so. As you are likely aware, over the past few months, a debate has raged over how best to reform our Social Security system to ensure that it can continue to meet the future retirement needs of our children and grandchildren. In the course of this debate, town hall meetings, constituent correspondence by mail, email, and phone, and citizens' groups and civic organizations' outreach have allowed me to hear from tens of thousands of Pennsylvanians who have expressed a tremendous variety of strong opinions on this important issue. I value this interaction with my constituents because it affords me the opportunity to hear first hand Pennsylvanians' concerns and suggestions about Social Security. As Pennsylvanians and I have engaged in an open and honest discussion about Social Security, I have repeatedly heard the fear from seniors that their hard-earned Social Security benefit promised to them will be taken away. Sadly, some individuals have used the current debate about the long-term solvency of the Social Security program to fuel these concerns by intentionally misleading America's seniors about Social Security reform. Please be assured that as proposals to strengthen and improve the system for future retirees are considered, I will remain committed to preserving benefits for current beneficiaries. Concerns are particularly understandable given that under current law, Congress has the right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of Social Security. This is the result of a 1960 Supreme Court decision (Flemming vs. Nestor), in which the Court established that workers have no legal claim to either their accrued Social Security contributions or their anticipated benefits. Yet, Americans rightly feel a powerful sense of ownership over these hard-earned benefits after a lifetime of paying into the Social Security system. While I do believe that the system must be strengthened and improved for future generations, the volume and passion of my constituents' communications have convinced me that the lack of a legal claim to Social Security must be remedied before reform can move forward. To that end, on September 22, 2005, I introduced S. 1750, the Social Security Guarantee Act of 2005, which would require the Secretary of the Treasury to issue to each Social Security recipient born before 1950 a personalized certificate of a written guarantee of a monthly benefit, plus a guaranteed annual cost-of-living increase. S. 1750 has been referred to the Senate Finance Committee, of which I am a member. Rest assured, I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Committee to ensure that this measure is brought before the full Senate as soon as possible, and signed into public law. Only then will Social Security benefits be guaranteed, providing seniors with the peace of mind they deserve by allaying fears that nothing Congress does will jeopardize Social Security benefits for retirees born before 1950. I look forward to working with my colleagues in Congress over the coming months to ensure that Social Security continues to meet the retirement needs of all Americans. Thank you again for contacting me on this important issue. If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call on me again. Sincerely, Rick Santorum United States Senate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 Santorum was the first to "reply:" 810224[/snapback] "which would require the Secretary of the Treasury to issue to each Social Security recipient born before 1950 a personalized certificate of a written guarantee of a monthly benefit, plus a guaranteed annual cost-of-living increase." Ooooh...a certificate from the Secretary of the Treasury. That'll keep SS solvent. !@#$ing douche... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 Santorum was the first to "reply:" 810224[/snapback] Wow, his aides got that form letter out quickly. You'd never guess that he's running for reelection this year. Of course, the fact that the aides didn't READ your letter isn't terribly surprising either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 Of course, the fact that the aides didn't READ your letter isn't terribly surprising either. 810324[/snapback] They don't have time to read. They're too busy packing up the Mayflower truck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 Hey Ken, Looks like Santorum is now 2 for 2 for *not* reading your letters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 [minor thread hijack] Columnist Dan Savage has been making an effort to get "santorum" into the english lexicon. santorum (san-TOR-um) n. The frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex. I challenge all PPP readers to try and insert "santorum" into their speech at least once a day. Let's hear your anecdotes on the PPP, and let us know if anyone recognizes the word when you use it. [/minor thread hijack] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 [minor thread hijack] Columnist Dan Savage has been making an effort to get "santorum" into the english lexicon. santorum (san-TOR-um) n. The frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex. I challenge all PPP readers to try and insert "santorum" into their speech at least once a day. Let's hear your anecdotes on the PPP, and let us know if anyone recognizes the word when you use it. [/minor thread hijack] 810344[/snapback] I have a better idea. How about referring to a thread hijack as "a Johnny Coli" We can add you to the lexicon alongside Stojan, Rosen, and Belinda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 I have a better idea. How about referring to a thread hijack as "a Johnny Coli" We can add you to the lexicon alongside Stojan, Rosen, and Belinda 810352[/snapback] I'd be honored. Why don't you show some initiative and lobby a mod, or create a poll. How about we also call all suck-up posts a "/dev/null"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 I'd be honored. Why don't you show some initiative and lobby a mod, or create a poll. How about we also call all suck-up posts a "/dev/null"? 810367[/snapback] Don't be a Wacka. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted October 20, 2006 Author Share Posted October 20, 2006 "which would require the Secretary of the Treasury to issue to each Social Security recipient born before 1950 a personalized certificate of a written guarantee of a monthly benefit, plus a guaranteed annual cost-of-living increase." Ooooh...a certificate from the Secretary of the Treasury. That'll keep SS solvent. !@#$ing douche... 810284[/snapback] I am still laughing at that. A fvcking certificate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 I am still laughing at that. A fvcking certificate. 810989[/snapback] You're such a cynic! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 22, 2006 Share Posted October 22, 2006 And how many of you send "form letters" as Christmas cards?... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted October 22, 2006 Share Posted October 22, 2006 "which would require the Secretary of the Treasury to issue to each Social Security recipient born before 1950 a personalized certificate of a written guarantee of a monthly benefit, plus a guaranteed annual cost-of-living increase." Ooooh...a certificate from the Secretary of the Treasury. That'll keep SS solvent. !@#$ing douche... 810284[/snapback] Well, I guess we now have a 4th biggest lie. 1.) No, I won't come in your mouth 2.) Of course I'll respect you in the morning 3.) The check's in the mail 4.) The Government certifies your SS payments forever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted October 22, 2006 Share Posted October 22, 2006 I am still laughing at that. A fvcking certificate. 810989[/snapback] It just dawned on me. What happens if you lose the certificate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts