Boxer's reply re: Social Security (45% reduction in benefits proposed!)

Sharing my letter from Barbara Boxer re: privitization of Social Security ...

I can only hope that she is able to really fight for all of us!

---------------------

Dear ___:

Thank you for writing to express your concerns about President Bush's
plan to partially privatize Social Security. I appreciate hearing from you.

Social Security is a crucial insurance program and an indispensable
safety net for our people. It has been enormously successful. Before Social Security, over half of all seniors were poor. Today, 10 percent live in poverty. That is still too many, and we want to take care of that. What we do not want to do is go back to the days when 50 percent of our seniors were living in poverty.

Under the President's plan, Social Security benefits would be cut by 45 percent. The average yearly payment would be only $5,700, which is 35 percent below the poverty line. That would be a tragic reversal of fortune for our people.

Certainly we know that Social Security needs periodic adjustments.
However, President Bush is misleading the American people by calling this a "crisis." According to the Social Security Trustees, there is enough money to pay full benefits until 2042. And according to the Congressional Budget Office, there is enough money to pay full benefits until 2052.

Now more than ever -- as we are faced with an aging population, the
imminent retirement of the baby boom generation, the costs of the war on terrorism, 40 million Americans without healthcare, and a ballooning budget deficit of well over $400 billion -- we cannot afford to divert needed funds away from an already stressed Social Security system.

This is too much of a risk to take with funds that so many workers
are counting on for their retirement. I feel strongly that we should not weaken Social Security or compromise its financial condition. Rest assured, I am committed to preserving the integrity of Social Security for generations to come. And it is not difficult to solve this challenge, just as we did in 1983.

Again, thank you for taking the time to voice your concerns. Please
continue to keep me informed about the issues that matter to you.

Sincerely,


Barbara Boxer
United States Senator

:-)

I like her comment that Bush is misleading the American public. She speaks my language!!

www.cafepress.com/showtheworld

One the sheep awaken to the 45% reduction in benefits figure so they can all live below poverty, the outrage will begin alas!

:kick:

It's hard to wake up someone who's kool-aid has been laced with valium. But we can always hope!

A strong possibility if they end up living in poverty! ~$5,000 a year doesn't buy a hell of a lot.

:dem:

"And it is not difficult to solve this challenge, just as we did in 1983."

In 1983 the social security retirement age was raised to 67 years old. And I believe the "penalty" for early retirement was also increased. Would Senator Boxer support an increase in the retirement age at which a person could receive full benefits to 70 or more?

Perhaps someone who knows her can find out. I hope her response is a loud and clear NO!

and that seemed to solve the problem. 70 is way too old. I know of so many people that are long dead before they can ever collect a cent from Social Security. Even 67 is too old IMO.

We need to do everything we can to difuse the lies! Lies, lies, lies!

Sen. Boxer points out these lies and says nothing about raising the retirement age.

I am hoping for the best. If that helps, I do not know.


:kick:

I don't know many men that work hard for a living that make it to 67. Like many guys I know, when you work hard starting at age 16, 67 is a long way off. Just look at the obits in a paper from a working class neighborhood. It's surprising the # of men you see that die in their 50's and 60's. 70 might work for people that don't work for a living (in other words, just occupy a desk), but it doesn't for those of us that do actual labor. 67 is even too high.

I just lost a sibling - age was 42; just lost a cousin - age was 51. Both worked since age 18 paying into SS and obviously never collected a cent.

It seems few (at least in my family) live to collect is my own experience. Maybe its just bad genes, I don't know.

In any event, I agree - 70 is way too old as is 67.

:kick:

Just thought I'd share this email from my favoritist senator:
(sorry--couldn't get the pictures to copy, but they were great!)

On Monday, 4,500 roses arrived at my Senate office from friends and supporters across the country -- what a wonderful Valentine's Day gift!
Thanks so much to those of you who sent them for such a warm and kind gesture on this special day.
I am emailing you some photos we took when the roses arrived in my office on Monday so you can enjoy them too.
Thanks especially to Stacy Davies in Claremont, CA who spearheaded the whole project. She came up with the idea for the Boxer rose campaign and encouraged hundreds of people in the online blog community to join her in contributing to the effort. I spoke with Stacy last Friday and thanked her personally for this terrific gift.
I hope all of you had a wonderful Valentine's Day and that you got to spend it with those you love. Let's especially remember our brave men and women in uniform serving overseas who weren't able to spend Valentine's Day at home. Thankfully, our wounded soldiers recovering at Bethesda Naval Hospital and Walter Reed Army Medical Center were also be able to enjoy this wonderful gift -- we sent the roses there Monday afternoon.
We've got a lot of work ahead of us. But every once in a while it's nice to stop and smell the roses. Thanks again to everyone who participated in such a warm and generous gift.

In Friendship,

Barbara Boxer