Sherrod Brown, Ohio SS hype

I would like to comment on our representatives point of view and how he got lost on the way to reality.



Congressman Brown believes that two principles should guide Social Security Reform:
To secure the program's long-term solvency.
This is impossible. When seniors or retirees out number workers, just what is his solution? Raise the age to 92 or cut the benefits? Never admit the money is gone and will not come back.
To preserve the program's role as a financial safety net for all Americans
No governement can repserve the financial status of its citizens. This is a hallmark of the communist belief. Share and share alike, except the only sharing is from the citizens to the government-not the other way around.
This means Social Security must continue to provide a guaranteed level of benefits sufficient to meet retirees' basic needs. Privatization threatens these principles and has drawn criticism from groups like the Alliance for retired Americans and the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare.
The current level of benefits is far below what is 'basic', people can not live on SS. And the only groups fighting to hold on to it make money from it. Let me know when a group that will not profit from keeping the system speaks up.
The most obvious threat posed by privatization is through the diversion of future revenues away from the Trust Fund and to the stock market. This move would undermine the traditional Social Security program, removing a vital safety net for many Americans.
First, the funds are not growing on trees. The funds BELONG to the workers.
Another danger of privatization is that the stock market carries with it a greater risk. Stock prices can fluctuate wildly, as in the case of Enron, where the share price dropped from $85 to $1 in less than a year. The current Social Security financing system, based on government bonds, gives a predictable income making it easier to insure continued solvency.
I am not sure how the word 'solvency' got linked up with SS. There is not fund, the money goes into the government pocket and is spent years before it is even in Washington(deficiet)
Privatization may also cause a conflict of interests for federal officials. If significant social security investments were made in a company, like Enron, which are later investigated by federal authorities the federal agents the investigation may be impaired by consideration of the effect on share price.
No the reverse it true. The government should then hold companies to the absolute letter of the law. Instead investigation is only held to the companies that are not playing with elected officials correctly.
This issue is of particular importance to women whose Social Security benefits are already lower than men's benefits, due to their lower earning levels (women still earn only 70 cents to every dollar men earn for similar work) and years spent in the work force (women are out of the work force more often and hold part time jobs due to childbearing).
Benefits are lower because congress made it so. Not that complicated. Congress writes the laws for SS and has becided the women are second class and should be treated as such.