SourceStop the Mexico Raid on Our Social Security!
RetireSafe Delivers 115,000 Petitions Opposing Social Security for Illegal Immigrants from Mexico
February 9, 2005
For more information: Michelle Plasari, 703-319-0009
(Oakton, VA) – Today, RetireSafe delivered 115,000 petition signatures to Congress calling for an end to the proposed U.S./Mexico Social Security Totalization Agreement.
“Social Security is not a welfare program and it should not be turned into a foreign aid program,” said RetireSafe President Charles Hardin.
RetireSafe joined with Congressman Virgil Goode (R-VA) and other members of Congress in urging the White House not to present the proposed totalization agreement with Mexico to Congress for approval.
“Using our Social Security Trust Fund to reward illegal acts, attract cheap labor, or bail out another nation’s economy at the expense of American retirees is just plain wrong,” continued Hardin.
The agreement with Mexico will allow Mexican citizens who work in the U.S. illegally to earn valuable Social Security credits for breaking the law. It is projected to drain $350 billion from the Social Security Trust fund over the next decade.
“Hard-working Americans pay taxes each and every day to support our Social Security system. At a time when Social Security is ill-prepared to keep its promise to Americans, it makes no sense to allow illegal immigrants to reap the benefits,” said Hardin.
“Is it too much to ask that Social Security benefits be preserved for those who earned them legally? Seniors are tired of these shenanigans coming out of Washington. If the President and Congress are serious about Social Security reform, they will stop this foolish totalization agreement with Mexico,” concluded Hardin.
RetireSafe is a grassroots action network representing more than 300,000 seniors nationwide united in the belief that individual ownership and control is the key to retirement security. To find out more about RetireSafe and its activities visit www.RetireSafe.org.
In an early test of strength over President Bush's immigration reform agenda, some conservatives and seniors organizations are campaigning to block implementation of a U.S.-Mexico pact on Social Security.
Bush must decide soon whether to send Congress the U.S.-Mexico Social Security Totalization Agreement signed by the two nations last June.
The United States already has similar agreements with 20 other countries. They are intended to ensure that workers who spend part of their careers overseas and pay into another country's retirement funds, qualify for full Social Security benefits in whichever country they eventually retire.
Last week, Virginia Rep. Virgil Goode introduced a resolution co-sponsored by 25 fellow Republicans urging Bush not to submit the agreement to Congress.
"It will be a drain on the Social Security trust fund. We have hordes of illegals here. If they get an amnesty, they'll be able to reap a huge benefit under this agreement," he said.
Other conservative groups and some organizations of retired people are also mobilizing. RetireSafe last week sent a petition to Congress with 115,000 signatures against the Mexico agreement. Another group, the Senior Citizens' League, has also come out against it.
The issue has taken on additional urgency because it may indirectly impact on two major planks of Bush's domestic agenda -- his plan to restructure and partially privatize Social Security and his pledge to institute a "guest worker" plan under which some of the estimated 8 million to 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States would be able to obtain legal work permits for a limited time.
"I think this agreement is dead in the water. If Bush goes ahead, he would be angering members of his own party who might otherwise be inclined to support his main Social Security reforms," said Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates lowering legal immigration and clamping down on illegal migration to the United States.
But failure to submit the agreement to Congress would anger Mexico, which has become Washington's second largest export market, and would penalize Americans who spend part of their careers working there.
Bush is already facing considerable opposition to his immigration proposals, mainly from within his own Republican Party which is badly split on the issue.
"Opposition to the Mexico Social Security agreement is indicative of the reflexive opposition by some members of Congress to anything to do with Mexican immigration," said Daniel Griswold of the conservative Cato Institute.
"They don't want to cede an inch even if the measure is relatively costless and fair," he said.
Opponents of the pact dispute that it will be relatively costless and estimates of how much it may cost differ wildly. Goode cited a figure of $345 billion over 10 years, a number widely repeated by opponents of the agreement.
The Social Security Administration dismisses that figure as false and misleading and says the agreement will have no impact on Social Security's overall financial viability.
Administration spokesman Michael Lassiter said the fund's actuaries calculated an average annual cost of $105 million for the first five years and there was no way illegal immigrants could benefit. By 2050, the actuaries calculate an annual cost of $650 million.
However, in congressional testimony in September 2003, an official from the General Accounting Office said the actuaries had often underestimated the true costs of other similar agreements and the situation with Mexico was even more difficult to forecast.
Uh, Squawker, you're defending SS here? Aren't you a supporter of Bush's privatisation plan that will efectively destroy SS?Squawker said:
anomaly said:Uh, Squawker, you're defending SS here? Aren't you a supporter of Bush's privatisation plan that will efectively destroy SS?
Well, your right, as Bush said earlier 'I have no plan'. But we do know that he wants private accounts which will, as you say, help the wall street brokers, and about half of the US population. Those of us who wish to keep our money in the gov't's hand (me, as I do not trust the market) are completely screwed. Privatisation of any part of SS will lead, down the road, inevitably, to complete privatisation. And once that happens, in short, we're all screwed. And what Bush has said of his 'plan' will screw my mother's generation the most, the 40-54 year olds. They will see a tax hike in their lifetime, coupled with a decrease in SS benefits (that is, of course, if Bush does create private accounts that allow to to take out a third of your SS taxes and invest it).26 X World Champs said:Bush doesn't have a plan! So far he's made vague, untrue generalizations that are not fact based. There isn't a plan, there's zippo. So far the only people who will benefit from what Bush has been talking about are Wall St. brokers.
There's no way to no more than that, since Bush hasn't told us what his 'plan' is.
We actually do not know anything. Without a plan everything is a guess. If you invest your money and it loses money, then what? Can't happen? Ask anyone who built their 401K in the 90s what it's worth today. Answer? Less than you put in!anomaly said:Well, your right, as Bush said earlier 'I have no plan'. But we do know that he wants private accounts which will, as you say, help the wall street brokers, and about half of the US population. Those of us who wish to keep our money in the gov't's hand (me, as I do not trust the market) are completely screwed.
anomaly said:Privatisation of any part of SS will lead, down the road, inevitably, to complete privatisation. And once that happens, in short, we're all screwed. And what Bush has said of his 'plan' will screw my mother's generation the most, the 40-54 year olds. They will see a tax hike in their lifetime, coupled with a decrease in SS benefits (that is, of course, if Bush does create private accounts that allow to to take out a third of your SS taxes and invest it).
But I'm just saying, if private accounts are created, your age group will be completely screwed. You obviously realize this, it is the conservatives who don't.26 X World Champs said:We actually do not know anything. Without a plan everything is a guess. If you invest your money and it loses money, then what? Can't happen? Ask anyone who built their 401K in the 90s what it's worth today. Answer? Less than you put in!
As a 49 year old I do not believe that your statement is accurate, yet. Ask anyone in the Senate when anything will happen, and the current answer is what people who loved the Brooklyn Dodgers used to say:
"Wait 'til next year."
By this I mean that no bill will be written or submitted until 2007 at the earliest. No way that Republicans will let SS be an issue in the 2006 elections. My point is that talk is cheap, and actions speak louder than words. So far, Bush is zero action and a zillion words.
26 X World Champs said:Bush doesn't have a plan! So far he's made vague, untrue generalizations that are not fact based. There isn't a plan, there's zippo. So far the only people who will benefit from what Bush has been talking about are Wall St. brokers.
There's no way to know more than that, since Bush hasn't told us what his 'plan' is.
So, does anyone have any idea what will happen to the market when you put a couple trillion dollars into it? I've been wondering about what, if any, effect that would have.Pacridge said:I just read an article this weekend that spoke about the main Wall Street firms and their lobbyist. You'd think they'd be all for this private account plan. They're not. So far their not even spending a dime promoting it or lobbying for it. For several reason's one they see the gains made by managing the accounts as being off set by any liabilities that could arise. Second they're concerned as to what will happen to the market when you suddenly increase it by a couple trillion dollars.
On another note you replied to a post I made on another thread concerning a comment I made regarding the Yankees. I live in the Pacific Northwest. So not big Yankee fans around here. But I can certainly see why anyone in NY would like them. They win and they win often. That maybe why people around here dislike them. Kind of get tried of seeing the same teams win year after year.
I support allowing young people who do not have a 401K plan to make some investments that will supplement their SS. We have millions of low income jobs that offer nothing for their employees. If they have to pay into SS anyway, it just makes sense to invest some of it. I have said before I wish SS would be eliminated and replaced with straight welfare payments. Why should rich people get SS when they don't need it? Put a cap on it -- and eliminate aliens from the systems.Uh, Squawker, you're defending SS here? Aren't you a supporter of Bush's privatisation plan that will efectively destroy SS?
So you would be against the Bush plan then? Actually, one of the alternatives to private accounts is to lower or take away benefits for the rich. But the rich would still pay into SS, making it a collectivist program. And collectivism is not popular in the US, so I doubt this plan would make it. I'd say still give the rich a fixed amt of SS benefits, but raise the cap on the rich along with raising the retirement age. If the cap is just raised to 148K, the system should be solvent atleast for another 70 years. During these 70 years, the gov't should work on paying back the SS trust fund as the gov't has borrowed over a trillion dollars.Squawker said:Anomaly said:
I support allowing young people who do not have a 401K plan to make some investments that will supplement their SS. We have millions of low income jobs that offer nothing for their employees. If they have to pay into SS anyway, it just makes sense to invest some of it. I have said before I wish SS would be eliminated and replaced with straight welfare payments. Why should rich people get SS when they don't need it? Put a cap on it -- and eliminate aliens from the systems.
What do you think his plan is? The only real plan I have seen so far is to get people talking about it.So you would be against the Bush plan then?
Sure they will.If the cap is just raised to 148K, the system should be solvent atleast for another 70 years. During these 70 years, the gov't should work on paying back the SS trust fund as the gov't has borrowed over a trillion dollars.
I haven't really been following immigration reforms. I know there have been several proposals. You can find out more about it here. Do a search for--- immigration ---.However my question to you is why is Bush and the Republican party not doing any thing to stop Illegals from working illegal ............We have A Republican President and A Republican house and senate ..........Yet they do not doing any thing to stop this crap.
You're right about one thing: really, the only thing that makes up the Bush plan is the creation of private accounts that will consist of 4% of taxes that would have gone towards SS (and it seems obvious to me that this will shortchange current retirees, and thus neccesitate the lowing of benefits). And I came across an interesting article recently reminding me that the SS general fund pays not just for SS but also for other gov't programs. Perhaps the best solution is to make SS once again, over the course of some time, of course, into an independent trust fund rather than a general trust fund. That way we will never see SS giving out more in benefits then it brings in through taxes.Squawker said:What do you think his plan is? The only real plan I have seen so far is to get people talking about it.
Sure they will.
If we don’t do anything the payments will have to be reduced, (basically saying minus 4% ) or increasing the retirement age, so the majority of people are dead before they can collect. That was what FDR planned by setting the age at 65 when most people didn’t live beyond 62.the only thing that makes up the Bush plan is the creation of private accounts that will consist of 4% of taxes that would have gone towards SS.
That is never going to happen, regardless of what party is in power.And I came across an interesting article recently reminding me that the SS general fund pays not just for SS but also for other gov't programs. Perhaps the best solution is to make SS once again, over the course of some time, of course, into an independent trust fund rather than a general trust fund. That way we will never see SS giving out more in benefits then it brings in through taxes.
First, I'd like to know where conservatives are getting the idea that those of us on the left wish to do nothing? No one wants to do nothing! But you must understand that, under the Bush plan (private accounts), those who choose to stay in the gov't program will receive less in benefits than they do now. The only way around this is to raise taxes, and I doubt Bush will do this. So, basically, those who choose to stay in the sytem are screwed.Squawker said:If we don’t do anything the payments will have to be reduced, (basically saying minus 4% ) or increasing the retirement age, so the majority of people are dead before they can collect. That was what FDR planned by setting the age at 65 when most people didn’t live beyond 62. That is never going to happen, regardless of what party is in power.
If young people are given a choice between paying more in taxes or paying into an investment company at the same rate, what do you think they will pick? The only ones who might opt out will be the very uneducated, and society will pay for them without a "SS fund". People who have never paid into SS are still taken care of even if it is at a sub standard level. Why would any reasonable person opt for less if they had a choice?anomaly said:First, I'd like to know where conservatives are getting the idea that those of us on the left wish to do nothing? No one wants to do nothing! But you must understand that, under the Bush plan (private accounts), those who choose to stay in the gov't program will receive less in benefits than they do now. The only way around this is to raise taxes, and I doubt Bush will do this. So, basically, those who choose to stay in the sytem are screwed.
Squawker said:If young people are given a choice between paying more in taxes or paying into an investment company at the same rate, what do you think they will pick? The only ones who might opt out will be the very uneducated, and society will pay for them without a "SS fund". People who have never paid into SS are still taken care of even if it is at a sub standard level. Why would any reasonable person opt for less if they had a choice?
The only ones who might opt out will be the very uneducated, and society will pay for them without a "SS fund".
There was a Newsweek poll in Feb – I don’t have a subscription to give you a link, but I remember reading about it.Please back up your claims with numbers? You appear to be making a broad brush stroke statement about "young people" without any facts attached to it?
I will go back to saying “Do you know what the cost of living will be in 50 years?” Private accounts are just that; Not part of the SS system. Something the government couldn’t get their greedy hands on to spend. That would be over and above regular Social Security payments.Bush's never even proposed a plan, so how could anyone know if they're for or against it? One thing we do know for sure, private accounts do NOTHING to resolve the eventual shortages in the SS system and do not in any way contribute to the SS system's solvency...in fact they do the opposite.
From what I have read about what President Bush is proposing, it would mainly be for people who might not have a 401K program or enough income to put money into an IRA.If 'young people' want to invest their money, why don't they simply open an IRA? It's tax deferred, you control it, and you have access to the funds in an emergency.
I guess I didn’t word that right, but even middle income folks often don’t have enough money to invest.If the so-called very educated are so smart that they will opt in to a privatization plan why don't they show their intelligence by opening an IRA?
That is NOT what Bush is talking about. If he were simply proposing a program that was in addition to SS it would be a different debate. He is proposing that money that is supposed to go to SS would be diverted to private accounts. The regular SS payout would also be reduced. The money that you would put into the private accounts would be paid it along with your reduced SS benefit. If your account did better than SS you would too. If it did worse you would too.Squawker said:There was a Newsweek poll in Feb – I don’t have a subscription to give you a link, but I remember reading about it.
I will go back to saying “Do you know what the cost of living will be in 50 years?” Private accounts are just that; Not part of the SS system. Something the government couldn’t get their greedy hands on to spend. That would be over and above regular Social Security payments.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?