How People Voted
23% For, 77% Against
17 votes cast
Take Action
 |
Alert Your Friends and Colleagues |
 |
Write Your Representative in Congress |
| Organize | |
|
Start A Petition |
| Save & Share | |
 |
del.icio.us |
 |
Digg |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
Yahoo! |
Discussion: S. 426, The Social Security Solvency Act of 2009 (5 comments ↓)
- This item is from the 111th Congress (2009-2010) and is no longer current. Comments, voting, and wiki editing have been disabled, and the cost/savings estimate has been frozen.
No discussion on this article yet.
Cost per :
Learn More
RSS Feeds for This Bill
Keep yourself updated on user contributions and debates about this bill! (Learn more about RSS.)
Visitor Comments
Lynn Lewis
March 4, 2009, 11:36am (report abuse)Nobody without a law degree can understand this. It is ridiculous to do anything other than manage the Social Security fund with its original intent: what we put it in is what we get out. Otherwise, allow us to take out our fair share and invest it ourselves. End of story.
bhetti
May 17, 2009, 1:11pm (report abuse)I don't understand how this bill makes SS more fair unless it incorporates earnings sharing so divorced disabled women aren't left in the cold.
Chester Morrison
March 2, 2010, 1:05pm (report abuse)The fund's insolvency is due to the fact that for the last quarter century the trust fund has financed government spending (at least since Johnson used it to finance the war in Vietnam), not because it's a ponzi scheme. You can make an argument for extending the retirment age to 67 based on longevity, but it's a stretch to prorate the premium when you've borrowed from the fund extensively without repayment, which only now seems to be an afterthought in need of correction.
bheld
April 12, 2010, 6:38pm (report abuse)No wonder the present atmosphere in Washington is so corrupt and geared to spending. Our trusted leaders have been stealing our money for years. An old boss of mine owned a credit union and stole from it. All he got was 90 days house arrest with an anklet bracelet. Appears to me all we need is credible and true enforcement of our current laws, not new ones.
TJ
June 25, 2010, 12:37pm (report abuse)This bill is only another iteration
of the attempts to reduce benefits by playing with inflation and related adjustments. Currently the
annual COLA adjustment of benefits is zero although the actual inflation rate is at least 2% and higher if you takeCPI-E instead ofCPI-W which is currently used.
Sponsors of these bills should be ashamed of themselves. I call this "cutting the hot dogs in half at the old age home".