RE: Impressive Consensus

[Michael Jones <powderfinger99@yahoo.com>]

<<<
The plan I offered this week in conjuction with the Chairman of the Social
Security Subcommittee represents our best effort to synthesize the many
different perspectives and views from across the political spectrum and both
parties.  Just yesterday, the Social Security Administration itself, after
reviewing my proposal to reform Social Security agreed it would keep the
program solvent for more than 75 years and may also allow payroll reductions
after the baby boomer generation has retired.  On top of that, the Joint
Taxation Committee this week reviewed the plan and said that 63% of it's
benefit would go to workers making less than $50,000.  The Archer/Shaw plan
represents years of hearings and bipartisan analysis concludes that it will
save Social Security for at least 75 years without raising taxes or cutting
benefits.
>>>

I have read the Archer/Shaw plan. It is very similar to the Presidents
plan. In other words, the Republicans are "punting" and hoping
for a Republican president in the future.

This plan does nothing for younger workers who will still be getting
a poor return on Social Security, since it keeps Social Security
essentially intact. Why isn't 12.4% of payroll enough? Why is
even more money required (by essentially locking in the future 
on-budget surplus) to "save" this system? Where is the real reform?
Why the tax credit? Does the IRS really need to be involved in this?

Reformers should fight any attempt which requires more tax dollars
to try to "save" a failed system.

<<<
On top of that, the Joint
Taxation Committee this week reviewed the plan and said that 63% of it's
benefit would go to workers making less than $50,000. 
>>>

I need to make sure I keep my income under this level. The less
I make the more free money I can get from the government.


Michael