CONGRESS in its excuse for trashing a 50 year old implied contract between the generations uses the following two major arguments.
1. "Fairness " to newer generations(primarily the "Boomers who control the House & Senate , such a coincidence!). To which I refute in the following letter published earlier this year in theNewYorkTimes.
2."Balance the budget" Since when does this suddenly matter to Congress? It matters only as a political football. Indeed the U.S budget underwent a radical transformation in the 90's for convenience sake .When in 1986 the so called tax reform act was passed , which disallowed all new real estate apartment syndicate deductions over $10,000 dollars , the seeds were planted for the collapse of most of the savings and loan industry . Because most of their investments were real estate syndicates the values of their portfolios were heavily discounted. Did Congress care? No of course not because of the creative bookkeeping fiction used to hide the massive tax payer funded bailout! How ?
Take it off the books!!!!!!!!!!!!. Yes a near trillion dollars used to bailout secured accounts and investments simply were not part of the official U.S budget. These failed savings & loan banks were then sold at very deep discounts to larger more solvent banks at a bargain. So as to a balanced budget it doesn't exist because there is no more real budget. Remember tax paying social security & Medicare recipients have pored real money into the system for over 60 years. No member of Congress pays a penny into these trust funds. They, Congress , have no financial stake in the Social security system. Besides all Congress is untitled to FREE medical care. Their retirement system is also 5,000% more generous than the people they represent. So nobody in Congress will feel any pain when the system(Social Security & Medicare) is hacked to pieces.!!!!!!!!

Friday, February 21, 1997

To: Peter Passel c/o The New York Times Editorial staff
From: Larry Dersh

Subject: February 20th ' Economic scene' social security article.

What Mr. Passel purports as fairness in reducing the national deficit is nothing but the most blatantly unfair proposal to people, who like me , have not retired but have contributed the maximum for over 40 years. I think privatization is neat as long as the government retroactively credits me with money that's due to me. This is perfectly fair as the advisory commission is planning on retroactively eliminating benefits due me. Based upon estimated payments at a very modest 6% interest rate, I should have approximately between $250,000 to $300,000 thousand dollars in my account. Frankly I would prefer a lump sum payment so I could have an annuity that would give me a much better annual income with no provisions about taking it away based on working part time. As to raising the retirement age it is extremely difficult for any person over 50 or 60 to get or keep any decent job no matter how well qualified unless hamburger flipping or supermarket box boy work is pursued. Age discrimination is a national virus and will get even worse in the future. This is my money the commission is proposing to plunder from me & I will not take it gracefully anymore, as the faithful hardworking tax milked cash cow object that the government sees me as.

Larry Dersh