reply to dialogue

[Camille Thompson <thompdog@thegrid.net>]

I have enjoyed reading the daily summaries.  I suppose I should give you
my opinions on some of your issues so far before I begin on my own
self-interested and self serving requests.
    
I think when Social Security was established it was a brilliant response
to a critical social need. I think that the confidence in capitalism was
not as strong as it is now.  I know that the life expectancy of all
Americans was far lower.  I don't think the founders of Social Security
thought that they would see, like I see in a community such as Palm
Springs, CAL that multimillionaires still collect their monthly SS and
rightly so, since they were contributors.  Gender bias and racial
bias were not as examined, recognized and factored in sixty years ago.

Gen xers should bring up issues of equity.  They can't be taxed to
support our bulge in the population.  I do think that persons with
higher assets could join a self-investing  club or join a blind trust
arrangemnt where some social security could be diverted into the stock
and bond markets.  Ssome Americans may wish to divert their soc sec into
developing nations markets as a double insurance for their retirement
and the investment of their second country.  I don't think the gov't
should continue with as is with ss.  And, when you live in CAL you can
quickly see that our voters are traditional but cautious about the roles
of gov't as the largest minority in Cal.  begins to vote in larger
amounts, the spanish surname vote.  

My single minded, selfish and angry issue with social security is this.
I changed careers three years ago.  I went from being a mom-social
worker to a mom-teacher.  I am a single parent.  The day I start to
collect my lousy $1100. teachers pension I will lose 60% of my social
security because of some legislation that doesn't wnat me to 'double
dip'.  SocSec Admin kindly sent me No. 05-10007 and 05-10045 which tells
me that I didn't earn enough 'substantial earnings' in my 25 years of
earnings to qualify for keeping more of my ss.  Why didn't I earn more?
I had three children and my earnings power went down for a six year
period.  I also earned less as a women in the 60's and 70's.  I worked 
parttime in the nineties also and cut my living expenses by moving to
the desert so to spend more time with my kids as I have been raising
them alone.  These 'substantial earnings' charts are gender and racially
biased as women and minorities make less consistently.  Now I discover
that somewhere in Soc Sec.  they do not want to encourage people to
go into teaching by public policy!!  Go become a teacher as a second 
career (only 15 years in STRS system) and lose 60% of your Social
Security.!!  

I'm sorry to be so myoptic but I am appalled that a profession such as
teaching would be considered a reason to cut retirement benefits.  And
although the 'substantial earnings' limits look like they are based on
minimum wage earhings, why would anyone want to eliminate social
security for low income people?  Surely, a head of household who earns
31K with three teenagers to support is not a wealthy person.  I would
like my soc sec to be invested in the private sector.  Although I always
end up spending my mutual fund mini investments, I always make more than
a bond !  

So continue the dialogue.  It's very interesting.  The current retirees
had more disposable income in the 70's and 80's that we do now.  Witness
the savings rates, cost of living, inflation in the late 70's for my
generation, etc.  My mother doesn't believe that one third of my income
is spent in taxes and benefits.  

Thank you,  Camille Thompson
             Desert Dweller