I delivered our letter to my neocon congressman today

I met our DFA group, the ones that wanted to come, out front. Coming in , I spotted a plainclothesman (earpiece, jeans, clean tennis shoes, polo shirt) and feared the worst. After yesterday's imbroglio I wondered what would happen. I had written a lettr up outlining our take on Social Security , and was bringing it to Gallegly's staff as I said I would.

I decided against cameras because they were obviously just conflating every leftist (it turned out that it was NION who was there and peed in the sink) Green and Democrat as one large group , all of us undoubtedly conspiring ways to pee in the sink again.

Now, I could start twenty-six stanzas about this like Alice's Restaurant but I won't. But I could. While it may be true that my publicizing that unfortunate traumatic incident in that poor lady's life might actually inspire it to happen again, I decided in this case DFA is a high road kind of organization, and this was actually about SOMETHING and less about theater, and I wanted the subject matter to be paramount above and beyond the action or conflict.

Just as well, as they had obviously prepared for the worst, Republican style. The office was deserted. Quiet. For a second I thought about looking under the desk, but I was afraid what I might see.

So. Me. Congressman Gallegly's office. Solitude. Crickets. I was about to whip out my phone and call them just to see who would answer the phone, when through the double doors from the lobby to the inner office came a pleasant woman who looked familiar to me, I got a flashback of a past charity fundraiser at North Ranch Country Club. You know, non-denominational. Crips and Bloods in the same room, no weapons, that kind of thing.
"Hi" , I said, and introduced myself. So did she, and I immediately forgot her name. I asked for Staffers. "I'm sorry" she said , "they're all gone at meetings". I tried not to look disappointed. " I realize you may have been expecting some trouble today, that you got the wrong idea, maybe because of your past trauma with the anti-war thing and all, but we're not adversarial on this issue. We just want Congressman Gallegly to take this under advisement" And I gave her the letter. We exchanged pleasantries , and I left. Down in the parking lot Chuck, who I refer to as the old Wobbly because he's like old school IWW from Chicago and is always ready to kick ass, points out the loitering police car. "I want to ask them who called them out here. This is just more of that encroaching Police State I'm always warning you about." It's a hot day, in the high 80's and I'm in business attire, on my way to the office. It's too hot. "Forget it, Chuck" I say, patting him on the back "it's Westlake." And I jump back into some automotive cool air.

The letter:

Hon. Elton Gallegly
Us Congress Dist. 24

From :
California for Democracy, Conejo and Simi Valleys Chapter
"An active constituent group"

Dear Congressman Gallegly:

We are writing this letter at the request of your staff in order to accommodate their desires to control the medium in which we express our views to you.

The subject of this letter is Social Security, and our concerns about this very successful program and the threats it faces.

The annual report of the Social Security system’s trustees reveals a system in pretty good financial shape. In fact, it would take only modest injections of money to maintain the system’s current benefit levels for at least 75 years.

Other reports, however, appear to portray a system in deep financial trouble. It would seem that these reports are the ones your staff is familiar with. For example, a 2002 Treasury study, described by the New York Times, claims that Social Security and Medicare are $44 trillion in the red. What’s the truth?

Well, we predicate our views on a couple of facts. The Social Security system has been a target of the right wing of the conservative republican movement for as many years as it has existed. Republicans fought and voted against this issue when it was first before congress, and they have fought it ever since. It’s no wonder that a government currently dominated by this political persuasion would produce alarmist reports about the condition of the program.

A review of these alarmist reports reveal a key phrase: “and Medicare”. According to the Treasury study, only 16 percent of that $44 trillion shortfall comes from Social Security. Second, the supposed shortfall in both programs comes from projections about the distant future; 62 percent of the combined shortfall comes after 2077.

So what’s the problem? Baby Boomers. This giant lump in the population curve creates a demographic imbalance as more of them retire; ultimately some 10,000 Boomers per day will be retiring in approximately 10 years. This means that the number of retirees will rise faster than the numbers of workers entering the workforce for some 15 years.

As a result, benefit costs will rise by about 2 percent of GDP over the next 30 years, and creep up slowly thereafter. By comparison, making the Bush Tax Cuts permanent would reduce revenue by at least 2.5 percent of GDP starting now. That---combined with the fact that Social Security unlike the rest of the federal government is currently running a surplus---is why the Bush tax cuts are a much bigger problem for the nation’s fiscal future than the Social Security shortfall.

Here are some ideas for solving the budget deficit facing Social Security.

1) Repeal the Bush tax cuts for those earning over $350,000. As was pointed out by Mark Shields on The NewsHour (pbs.org), making this change would fund the Social Security shortfall. President Bush doesn't like this option and has asked Congress to make all tax cuts permanent, despite the problems facing Social Security and Medicare.

2) Raise the payroll tax. According to The Saint Paul Pioneer Press (February 3, 05), increasing the payroll tax from 6.2% to 7.15% would keep the Social Security trust fund in balance for another 75 years. President Bush has indicated that increasing the payroll tax is off the table. He believes that America won't remain competitive if payroll taxes are raised by 15%. (Of course, it can be argued that America can't compete with low cost labor around the world unless we're willing to pay wages comparable to wages in other countries. Bringing wages down that much would entirely destroy the American middle class.)

The payroll tax is unique in that many employers seem to feel it's a tax they pay, not the worker. (Technically, of course, employers do pay one-half of the total payroll tax for employees. This is just one of the expenses of having employees.) I think many employers believe that if they could eliminate the payroll tax, they'd be able to pocket the money while the workers received overall lower wages. The unlawful avoidance of employment taxes is one factor contributing to illegal hiring.

3) Increase the wages subject to payroll tax. In particular, upping the maximum amount of earned income subject to payroll taxes to $200,000 could largely eliminate the Social Security deficit. (Saint Paul Pioneer Press, Feb 4, 05).

Of course, there is a fairness issue. Is it fair for people earning more than $90,000 to make up most of the Social Security deficit? Each side has valid arguments.

It should be pointed out that Social Security is a regressive tax. Someone earning $300,000 per year pays far less in employment taxes as a percentage of their income than somebody earning $30,000 per year. This is because Social Security taxes only affect wages up to a "wage base," currently about $90,000. Yet, it's precisely lower-income and middle-class workers who are most dependent upon Social Security.

One possibility to help create an "ownership" society would be to make the payroll tax more progressive. Increase the maximum subject to payroll taxes, while simultaneously lowering the payroll tax rate on lower earnings. For example, exempting the first $10,000 in wages from employee-paid Social Security tax would give workers an extra $620. Then, the employer-paid rate of 6.2% could be paid into a special account for this person, while benefits were held fixed. Upon retirement, this personal account could be paid to the individual in addition to traditional benefits. This would have a far greater positive impact on poorer and middle-class workers than on the wealthiest individuals. However, such a change to payroll taxes is unlikely, because there wouldn't be anybody lobbying for this change. As 'Perfectly Legal: The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the Super Rich - and Cheat Everybody Else' argues, the tax system seems to favor the wealthy, because they're the ones lobbying the government. On the downside, a progressive payroll tax would be more complex than a flat payroll tax. (One complaint of many small business owners is the complexity of paying and reporting Social Security taxes.)

4) Another possibility would be to do away with the payroll tax entirely and increase income taxes proportionately to pay for Social Security and Medicare. Because the revenue pool created by Social Security contributions is actually used to fund many other government operations, it's not entirely unreasonable to lump Social Security and Medicare with other government expenses and expect the main income tax base to support it. Again, this change is unlikely because it would be strongly opposed by many people earning over $350,000 per year. Given the current budget problems, retaining a payroll tax until the country becomes more solvent would probably be a good idea, even if such a change could be made politically.

Now, we realize that such proposals are very dangerous ground for a legislator. But these are very dangerous times. As our representative, you have shown courage in the past. Specifically, last year you voted against an internal rule change in the Republican Party known as the “DeLay Rule”, which would have allowed Tom DeLay to remain as majority leader even if he was indicted by a Texas Grand Jury. Although it was quickly reversed, the DeLay Rule rescinded a 1993 rule passed by the Republican leadership, which called for Party leaders to step down if indicted. For that, Rep. Gallegly, you deserve an “attaboy” and our thanks.

We hope that you take this letter to heart, and realize Social Security is a non partisan issue important to us all. Thank You for your time.

Of direct confrontation.

I was in a town hall meeting with my republican congressman Petri, he was worthless, as he didn't answer a single question but the good news was that the group that came, over a 120 people, were from all political parties and we were all in agreement about leaving Soc Security alone or finding a logical way to solve it. One woman who spoke up said that she makes over the 90k mark and she would be perfectly willing to pay more soc sec tax if that was what was needed to ensure that the most needy kept their benefits intact.

My faith in my fellow man was restored at that meeting. We all agreed on jobs, health care (universal care was suggested and met with cheers and applause) get out of Iraq, develop renewable energy and congress and pres start working for the people instead of corporations.

Too bad that congressman felt so threatened. It's ridiculous that none of us can really meet with our elected representatives. It should be a mandatory requirement.

ergo some method in the madness I complimented him on. Never underestimate the ability of your allies to take you out.

I agree about people; it's as if the politicians create some starnge new breed incapable of letting things run smoothly.

Oh, and I sent that letter to our local papers.

I also attended my senators listening session, Russ Feigold. I am so impressed with him. He treated each person there with respect even those with opposing views. He answered every question in detail. Told you what he was working on, where he stand on the issue and why. He is also the poorest member of the senate.

In #3. Not quite sure why you did that. :shrug:

let's be honest here. This is about a source of capital for Wall Street, to replace the cash flow of the Baby Boomers.

It seems like a bone that would not create the expense of total conversion yet would feed the dogs of Wall Street.

And wahile we're at it, why not raise the IRA limit to $5,000 ?
That would keep the Street happy and benefit the middle class.

So for the latter reason, it will not be considered by the neocons, who are dedicated to destroying same.

Like they have in the UK. Every baby gets a $500 account and the government will match investment every year, up to $1,000, based on income. Something totally separate. It can then be used for education, down payments, retirement, or even medical emergencies. People would finally have a hand starting out in life, instead of struggling and hoping they have a few years to enjoy life when they're old.

None of this matters without social security though. That should be the focus. The solution is actually easy. More legal immigration and higher wages. They only talk about fewer payers going into the system, they don't talk about the projections on wages and immigration.

but yeah, weare falling into the same trap. This should be about Social security first, with augmentations to the American retirement fo the future next.

As we have pointed out, with the looming Baby Boomers demographics,first we need to fix medicare. Immediately.

:toast:

send it to the Times too....

michael.kinsley@latimes.com