I have read your position paper and I have some comments:
"Addressing the future of Social Security is not about crisis, but rather it is about opportunity."
I disagree, it is a crisis. It has been in crisis situation for quite some time.
"Today, we have the opportunity to invest the budget surplus into the future well-being of our Nation. Across party lines, Representatives and Senators generally agree that applying the surpluses to Social Security is in our Nation's best interest."
Representatives and Senators may agree with your statement, but I haven't run across anyone that I know that does. Besides, by the time Clinton and Congress get through spending billions upon billions fighting an "undeclared war" (one that Congress members should stop now!), how much of a surplus will be there anyway. For the record, put me down as NOT supporting applying surpluses to Social Security.
"I am deeply hesitant to radically change a program that has been so successful for so many. Rather, I believe Congress should invest the unified budget surplus into both Social Security and Medicare. This would reduce our Nation's debt and bolster our economy. In turn, it would strengthen our Social Security system for all American working families."
I guess it depends on how one describes "successful". I don't consider the program a success. When it began, 37 workers support each retiree. Now it's down to 3. I would think a "successful" program would have increased the support rather than reduced it.
"Nevertheless, we know that, because of long-term demographic trends, Social Security will need to be improved and strengthened. We should make certain, however, that no change to Social Security will compromise the program's most essential features, including: a gender-neutral, risk-free, lifetime guaranteed benefit (with annual cost-of-living adjustments)."
Why do you believe this has to be included in reform?
"I am receptive to alternative proposals to strengthen Social Security, but let us remember the intent behind Social Security: it is a guaranteed benefit to ensure that, when working adults retire, both worker and spouse will not live in poverty. It is a guaranteed benefit to ensure that unfortunate circumstances do not sink the vulnerable into destitution."
What about the original committee report that stated we should be able to get as good a return from SS as in the private sector?
