Congressman Pappas describes Social Security as “foundational” and “a critical safety net”. If you believe that Congressman, then, why have you signed as a co-sponsor of Social Security 2100 Act? You wrote that, “… Members from both parties must come together to strengthen these benefits that Americans have earned through a lifetime of hard work…” It is unreasonable to assert that your actions support your representation. Having looked up the bill and the co-sponsors… there are questions.
Let’s start with that claim of bipartisanship
There are 203 co-sponsors. All 203 are Democrats. None of the co-sponsors, none, seem to be interested enough in bipartisanship to find someone across the aisle to help in the effort to remediate an important program. Can you please explain to me how it is impossible to get any Republicans to join in sponsorship of this measure? More importantly if you actually want to pass bipartisan legislation don’t you have to attract people from across the aisle? How are your efforts in any way bipartisan? Is there no point on which any offer could be made that could entice any Republican to support this legislation? Really?
What’s the difference between political posturing and working for the citizens of NH?
We know from the trustees that the Social Security system is already paying out more than it is taking in annually. The system is broke… now… today. Is it reasonable to persist in such highly partisan posturing? Why is it unreasonable to call this legislation what it is… making political talking points out of a program that you describe as a critical safety net? How callous is that?
You said, “…Americans pay into Social Security throughout their working lives…” Sir, actually that is not really correct, is it? You make it sound like we are paying into a pension account that we have some claim to. That is not actually a reasonable description on your part. It is intentionally misleading. We are all forced to pay FICA tax which provides current period revenue used to pay benefits, which are current period expenses. Everyone pays taxes. We do not “pay into” Social Security. It is not possible to buy social security, is it? There’s no reserve account with anyone’s name on it. It isn’t a sort of lay away plan.
Ineffective or just procrastinating and posturing?
Given the immediacy of the need and the gross amount of debt the nation is carrying, why are you procrastinating in solving this issue? Please explain why we cannot make the system actuarially sound? Why is everything not on the table? Why aren’t your efforts bipartisan? If you, “…believe we can work together to extend the life of this critical program for generations to come…” Then why are you buying into such an obviously partisan, political talking point, Social Security 2100 Act, instead of working to solve the problem?
Look, you are young. It seems you don’t actually care if the system collapses. At the very least you have no sense of urgency in you tone or your approach. Everyone gets it. The strategy is: Sell the free stuff and haul in the suckers. Just keep fleecing the sheep. Well, it is late in the game for Social Security. You knew or should have known that when you took the job. Older people are not going to tolerate that unserious B.S. Social Security 2100 Act is.
Conclusion
We all understand when you don’t have enough money to pay the bills you don’t cut taxes, the revenue stream that pays the bills, and go merrily along your way. It is unreasonable because that brings in less revenue not more. That is ignorant in the extreme. It is time to extract your cranium from your rectal orifice. Social Security is in real trouble today. That means we have real expectations and real needs which we are relying on you to really do something about.
Congressman, we’ll be looking for you on the campaign trail. Happy trails to you… until we meet again.