Tuesday, August
31, 2010

Dear NCPSSM,

“Boomsday” is fast approaching. Are
we considering age and the higher lifespan and increased functionality of our
older beneficiaries? I am a young recipient. I am disabled by doctor’s
diagnosis. I appreciate every penny that comes in due to disability
entitlements. Without it, I am in a lurch. With it I am vulnerable; mostly
because it is not enough standing alone, even with all the work that I do in
various capacity, for me to survive. My income is low, while output is of great
contribution. Company loyalty counts for little in terms of direct and regular pay.
But, thanks to social security and family contributions, I am alive.

I share some strategies with you to
keep SOSEC vital. I have read an old article that applies today still. In it, are
views that I share with the editor, and, I ad some personal strategies and
views also. Payroll taxes among workers should be increased evenly across the
board MODERATELY. Payout of benefits to entitled persons should be reduced, MODERATELY,
for an initial period. Persons with history of higher earnings should receive
less “out the gate”. Social Security is based on a pooling principle to support
the weaker, those who cannot work any longer, and those who are incapacitated
by society and deemed unfit for work to particular extents, measured by certain
output of hours- disabled. They are the weakest.

One tip would be to determine the
median salary for the last five years of a person at work, to serve as a
sliding scale for how much entitlement the beneficiary would receive after working, and, how much they must
pay into while working if they
return to work.

Among higher age beneficiaries, I
hope that parties are aware that people can live well into their nineties. Many
of them are productive into their late seventies, and taking this into
consideration for pay out formulas is crucial to fairness for future and
present recipients of SOSEC funds.

While no one wants to be the group
of entitlement recipients to pay more than the other at any given time, the
most vulnerable among us are those who receive smaller payments on “fixed”
incomes as opposed to those who paid higher taxes, expecting to receive more funding
in their retired years. The fact is that those who earned more should expect to
have saved more throughout their
working years. Lack of good spending habits regardless of income level is not
sound fiscal behavior. And, those persons should expect that they can live on
as little as any other beneficiary who receives less than they do after communal
retirement.

The most vulnerable are the
disabled, independent of age level, and the disabled due to advanced age. Both
parties are prohibited from paying higher taxes. It’s worth noting that the
last decade or so has seen very little inflation. That means that there has
been less burden on Congress to act swiftly in SOSEC policies, but during such
time, conditions have been right for fair formulas to be drafted for SOSEC
payout. Has Congress been busy devising such a formula?

The group of recipient which I
belong to, cannot be expected to keep SOSEC financially strong. That is why,
especially if that group grow in number, the payout formula must be adapted (if
it has not already been) to be lean and strong, and resilient. Resilient-
meaning that as a cornerstone to formula, we must work with correct age numbers
and not just one retirement age.

·        
widow benefits must be adjusted so as not to
impinge on beneficiaries who never marry.

·        
the payroll tax must be raised across the board
more aggressively among workers with salaries above 250K/anum.

·        
benefits must be re-evaluated annually, so as to
ensure that payroll taxes will be properly  
assessed in determining unique SOSEC payout at a later or present date
per individual.

·        
minimum payout must be sufficient for a decent
standard of living among disabled persons as well as retirees. More benefit is
then commensurate with payroll tax bracket and a lifetime average income index.

·        
for those who go back to work, their benefits
should be suspended or reduced during work dependent on their pay level.

*While no one wants to pay more
taxes, SOSEC must remain in tact and healthy for many decades to come.

I think that the
NCPSSM can achieve this; and, I applaud them today if they have success with
Congress. Any fair formula is up to the legislators to hash out. That’s what
they’re paid for and that’s what we’ll vote on.

The combined young
and disabled are not equipped to shoulder more burdon unless they are high wage
earners, in which case they should pay higher payroll tax. A persons benefits
should be at a higher level only upon adequate annual assurances that a baseline
coverage of all lower than $250,000 annual pay, recipients, is met. No American
should live on less than $950.00 a month.

Also, we must
accept that a singular retirement age is an “inside the box” way of thinking.
There is no one age which applies to everyone. There are individuals in their
40’s and 50’s with less ability to contribute to national GDP than some
globe-trotting, benefit receiving 76 year olds. And the 76 year old might have
more on a fixed income, than the disabled “youth” does by comparison. So again,
a formula must be devised not according to retirement age, but rather age-in-comparison
to disability status, hours working, and income. Payroll taxes must be adjusted
as employer compensation for driving mileage according to gas prices are. If we
can slide that back and forth, then we should learn to slide payroll taxes
around as well.

In today’s day,
regardless of age, some people can contribute much and others not. Moreover,
workers of all age resign, are fired, quit, return to work, or stay at work, or
are homemakers without pay, etc. etc. Hence, an entitlement scale must be adhered
to in a manner similar to IRS’s oversight. If one is not disabled, such person
can expect their benefits (later received while not working) to be less net,
upon reaching non-working years. If they should choose to raise their SOSEC
payout index, they can work more or return to work and declare a later age of
retirement. Simple and fair.

Finally, I
reference former President George Bush and former presidential hopeful Al Gore.
Both had plans of engaging the market with the Social Security Administration.
Flash forward to today, Wall Street had its bailout, Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac
had their bailout, banks had theirs, while individuals and their SOSEC have not
had theirs. Who mismanaged money? Who got punished? Not even treasury bonds as
a proposed device for raising SOSEC funds is a secure enough guarantee, nor is
it high yielding. That is why the proposed measures from both of these men were
an idea that should not be put into practice. Who can bail out SOSEC if global
markets force a crash? The answer is no-one, willingly.

Some jobs simply
don’t pay enough. Worker loyalty to one company is nearly chided in today’s day
in age. But SOSEC must be the equalizer for such phenomena. RSP’s and similar
schemes are just that… schemes for rich hopefuls that mimic the speculative
“beer goggles” of “Fannie” and “Freddy” among other. Also, matching federal
dollars for spending accounts is a poor solution due to the reasons just
mentioned. They would simply take money out of “the pot” and divert funds with
risk. The basis of SOSEC is designed and should remain so, on a pooling
principle, just like any state or federal tax.

The system does
not have to be broken. And many “seniors” don’t have “one foot in the grave”
(in fact they’re still running most of our institutions) they are as viable as
they ever were even with the estimated “boomsday” fast approaching, and with
all the scientific health advancement we know of, they can remain in the work
force much longer than perhaps the current pay out formula suggests that they
can, whatever it is. They must remain a contributing force, lest they let the
weakest income earners “hold the bag” with record deficits. I don’t see how
such direction can help the democratic party, or any other.

·        
The
proposed plans (which I reference in no complete detail in this essay) were
suggested plans at one time by the former president George W. Bush and
presidential hopeful Mr. Al Gore, respectively. The Consumer Report (Oct. 2000) publication, is credited with providing
further detail about both gentlemen’s proposed actions. Notable, as well, is
the statement by the editor that the federal government would be “debt free by
2012.” *This claim was made prior to both the Iraq and Afghan wars. Only 2
years before we’re debt free?

I have
made this letter for the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare publicly available for reading on my blog. I am the
original author of this letter. I act independently of the NCPSSM organization
by advising them herein, without pay, for this consult and unsolicited advice,
as an active and concerned member of the NCPSSM (to date), who is often requested
of for signature of petition drives and funding solicitations carried out by
the NCPSSM for their political purposes.

I cannot accept any liability for the
failed adherence or the adherence, to any policies mentioned herein. The NCPSSM
is invited to put such policy in place with its credential and ability to encourage
law enactment within the Congress, without any request or mandate of favor in
return.

Sincerely,

                     Chris Fonseca