Home | GPO and WEP | Letter Campaign
Take Action Now | Petition | Contact Info | Newsletters
Home | GPO and WEP | Letter Campaign
March, 2003 - NEWSLETTER
LEGISLATION – 108TH CONGRESS
HR 75 Shaw, FL. A House bill to change the 2/3 Offset to 1/3 Offset.
HR 219 Paul, TX. A House bill to retain funds within Social Security.
HR 594 McKeon/Berman, CA. A House bill to repeal both the GPO and WEP.
S 349 Feinstein, CA. A Senate bill to repeal both the GPO and WEP.
HR 743 Shaw, FL. A House bill, section 418 is to close the Texas Loophole,
“…throughout the period beginning with the period of 60 calendar months preceding the last day the individual was employed by such entity and ending with such last day.” Defeated 3/6/03
HR 887 Jefferson, LA. To establish a $2000 per month GPO exemption.
HR ____ Frank, MA, To establish a $2000 per month WEP exemption.
(reintroduce within months)
Our position is to actively support HR 594 McKeon/Berman & S 349 Feinstein to repeal both the GPO and WEP.
Our position is to support removal of the loophole language from HR 743, Section 418, that would delete the “last day of employment under Social Security” and to list those legislators who cosponsor HR 743 with Section 418.
In Ohio Rep. Stephanie Tubbs-Jones is a cosponsor of HR 743, Sec. 418.
CBS EVENING NEWS
Through the efforts of Mary Ella Bergman, a retired Maine teacher living in New Jersey, and Sue Shaw, Penobscot, Maine, CBS Evening News reported on January 8, 2003 about local school employees who are being “shortchanged” due to the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP). CBS News received many calls, e-mails and letters of support on this issue and planned a follow-up newscast. Louise Corken, Dixon, Illinois was the focus of the follow-up newscast on February 11, 2003. This newscast also centered on WEP with illustrations of people working two jobs and who are victims of the WEP Social Security reduction. Again, many calls, e-mails and letters were sent to CBS in support.
For those of you who called, sent e-mails and letters – thanks for you efforts. We hope that CBS will do another follow-up with an emphasis on the GPO (Offset). We will try to keep you informed.
After the first CBS airing one of our Cincinnati members, Bill DeRemer, took the initiative and called our local CBS station. He explained our purpose and goal to change the GPO and WEP. Eileen was called for an interview that was aired on Feb. 6th. This resulted in numerous letters and e-mails asking to become members and common question "How can I help"? Please call your local TV station and newspaper and ask them to publicize how teachers, firefighters etc. face financial loss as the result of the GPO and WEP laws. We have copies of the national news program that we can send to you to use as an incentive for competitive stations to do the same type interview.
The Great Global Social Security Giveaway? January 9, 2003
by Rep. Ron Paul, M.D., R-TX (202) 225-2831
203 Cannon HOB Wash.DC 20515
“As we ring in the new year, dark clouds are gathering over our already dangerously fragile Social Security system. In December, the press reported on a looming deal between the Administration and the government of Mexico which would make hundreds of thousands of Mexican citizens eligible for U.S. Social Security benefits. The centerpiece of the agreement would be a so-called "totalization," which would mean that even if a Mexican citizen did not work in the United States long enough to qualify for Social Security, the number of years worked in Mexico would be added to bring up the total and thus make the Mexican worker eligible for cash transfers from the United States.
“Worse still, thousands of foreigners who would qualify for U.S. Social Security benefits actually came to the United States and worked here illegally. Under "totalization," a foreigner who came to the United States illegally could work fewer than the required number of years, return to Mexico for the rest of his working years, and collect full U.S. Social Security benefits while living in Mexico. That is an insult to the millions of Americans who pay their entire working lives into the system and now face the possibility that there may be nothing left when it is their turn to retire.
“The proposed agreement is nothing more than a financial reward to those who have willingly and knowingly violated our own immigration laws. Talk about an incentive for illegal immigration! How many more would break the law to come to this country if promised U.S. government paychecks for life? Is creating a global welfare state on the back of the American taxpayer a good idea? The program also establishes a very disturbing precedent of U.S. foreign aid to individual citizens rather than to states.
“Estimates of what this deal with the Mexican government would cost top one billion dollars per year. As the system braces for a steep increase in those who will be drawing from the Social Security trust fund, it makes no sense to expand it into a global welfare system. Social Security was designed to provide support for retired American citizens who worked in the United States. We should be shoring up the system for those Americans who have paid in for decades, not expanding it to cover foreigners who have not.
“Supporters of the Social Security to Mexico deal may attempt to downplay the effect the agreement would have on the system, but actions speak louder than words: According to several press reports, the State Department and the Social Security Administration are already negotiating to build a new building in Mexico City to handle the expected rush of applicants for this new program!
“It is uncertain whether the Administration will seek Congressional approval for this agreement. Let’s hope that such a substantive move – with such serious financial and legal implications – will not be made by Executive Order.
“In the 107th Congress, I introduced the Social Security Preservation Act (H.R. 219), which would ensure that all money in the Social Security trust fund is spent solely on Social Security. As Congress continues to demonstrate an inability to control spending that threatens the Social Security trust fund, the need for this legislation has never been greater. That is why I intend to re-introduce this legislation in the 108th Congress, which opens this month. Social Security should be limited to United States citizens and nationals who have paid into the system. It should not be a global giveaway.”
MEXICO OUR 51ST STATE ?
Siphoning off Social Security, Joel Mowbray, The Washington Times,
Jan. 9,2003
“If top officials at the State Department and Social Security have their way, up to $345 billion –or more- could be siphoned from the Social Security “trust funds” over the next couple of decades, mostly to pay benefits to Mexican citizens who work illegally in the United States. The ill-conceived plan was hatched as part of an accord currently being negotiated with Mexico to help align its social security system with America’s. The U.S. already has similar agreement with 20 nations, mostly in Europe, known as “Totalization” Agreements. “Totalization” is government – speak for combining or “totalizing” the Social Security taxes paid into America’s and a foreign country’s respective systems which allows people who split their careers between two countries to get a harmonized retirement benefit from the two governments.
“When media reports of the Mexico pact surfaced last month, the cost was pegged at hundreds of millions of dollars per year, to be paid out to roughly 37,000 Mexican citizens living legally in the U.S. But not mentioned is how the accord with Mexico, as now written, would differ from existing agreements in one key respect: illegal aliens from Mexico would also become eligible for Social Security benefits, which would force costs to skyrocket.
“Under current law people who worked illegally in the U.S can only receive Social Security benefits based on taxes paid during that time by becoming citizens or permanent legal residents. Once living lawfully in the U.S. though someone can receive benefits based on work performed while in the country illegally. The Totalization Agreement with Mexico would make illegal aliens from that country eligible for the same treatment under Social Security as U.S. citizens, without ever becoming legal residents or citizens.
“Although the press office from the Social Security Administration cautions,
‘Discussions are still in the preliminary stages,’ government sources familiar with the negotiations say that there has been agreement on most significant issues, including the expansion of eligibility for illegal aliens. An internal SSA memo also indicates that the pact will allow illegal aliens to qualify for Social Security benefits. ‘Mexican nationals working illegally in the U.S. can currently become entitled to benefits if they have made payment to the Trust Fund that meet vesting requirements.’ The Totalization Agreement would include this population of Mexican workers within the overall population of workers covered by this agreement.
“With anywhere from 7 to 11 million illegal aliens in the U.S. the majority of whom are from Mexico, including illegals in the pact would cost many more billions of dollars per year. The best indicator of how much illegals would receive in benefits would be the amount they have paid in over the years. Since 1990 the amount of SS taxes paid into the “Earnings Suspense File” which consists mostly of sums contributed by illegals aliens-has been increasing rapidly, for a total of nearly $300 billion during that time span, according to SSA’s own figures. (like all government “trust funds” there’s no money in the ESF, just an accounting of money) In Social Security entire history some $345 billion in Social Security taxes have been paid under bogus or non-work the hallmark of taxes paid by illegal aliens.
“While some argue that illegal aliens deserve benefits, since they already pay Social Security taxes, the fact is that allowing illegals to tap into the entitlement-aside from rewarding illegal behavior-would substantially undermine the financial ability to “pay” for a transition to personal accounts-based reform if the money that would have gone to the accounts is instead funneled to illegal aliens because of the Totalization Agreement.
“Final negotiations-which are overseen by State, but handled on the ground by technocrats from SSA-could finalized next month, according to an internal SSA memo. And an internal State Department memo indicates that the accord could be implemented as early as this fall. Although the White House would no doubt love to shower Mexico with affection, officials there are not aware of the true size and scope of the agreement-nor is Congress which has the final say.
“A Totalization Agreement with Mexico similar to the others-meaning no inclusions of illegals-would actually be a wise move. Such a deal would allow Mexican citizens who play by the rules to take full advantage of Social Security taxes paid both here and south of the border. But as things stand right now it is officials at State and SSA who are not playing by the rules-and Congress and the White House should not play along.”
THE THIRD WEEK OF EACH MONTH
Last year we were successful in getting 16 out of the 19 Ohio representatives to cosponsor legislation by writing a letter or e-mailing at a specific week. We need to follow up on what was a successful promotion. This year the third week of each month write your representative to cosponsor HR 594 McKeon/Berman, and Senators Voinovich and DeWine and request that they cosponsor S 349 Feinstein. The impact of receiving all of our letters within a week can be a great attention getting device.
In addition to the letter writing campaign, it is time to introduce yourself to your representatives. Remember they come to us at election time asking for our vote. Now it is time to contact their office and ask for an appointment. Let them see the real person who is paying the financial consequences of the offset and windfall laws. All Members of Congress will be home for spring break so call now and request a few minutes of their time. The purpose for the interview is to ask for their vote on HR 594 and S 349 to repeal the GPO and WEP. Contact anyone you know, present or previous coworkers and go together. Most often their secretaries will try to delay your request but insist on your right to see your representative. Remember you are paying their salaries, medical insurance, Social Security, FERS, and supporting their families. It’s time we return to the fundamental role of representative democracy.
We want to thank the Members of Congress from Ohio who have already cosponsored the McKeon/Berman HR 594 bill. They are Rep. Sherrod Brown, Rep. Paul Gillmor, Rep. Steven LaTourette, and Rep. Ted Strickland. Your action will not go unnoticed and will be publicized whenever possible.
For all of the letters, e-mails and phone calls made to Members of Congress by the readers of this Newsletter - THANK YOU! We are not a silent majority, we are a vocal minority - with 17,042 signatures on petitions to repeal both the GPO and WEP. Those petition signatures deserve a great big THANK YOU.
With the idea from Lynne Walters and the technical help from Mark Ryan we added an electronic petition.
Go to; http://www.PetitionOnline.com/ssoffset/petition.html. In the first 20 hours we had over 500 signatures, then without notice the number dropped to 424 and the online petition locked up. We are working on a fix and hope to have it up and running in short order. Sorry for any inconvenience you might have experienced.
Keep our Newsletters and use the information we print to strengthen our case as to why this immoral discriminating law needs to be repealed.
DOUBLE-DIPPING
The term "double-dipping" first appeared in Webster’s Dictionary in the mid 1970’s at the same time as the passage of the GPO and WEP. Webster’s dictionary gives this definition “A noun, double dipping, the act or practice of receiving more than one income or collecting double benefits from the same employer or organization.” The people shown on "CBS Evening News" at the February meeting in Illinois were correct. Those hit by the WEP work at two jobs and pay into two separate retirements. When one is Social Security and the other is a public pension system it is incorrectly called "double-dipping"; it should be called "double-working". Members of Congress are actually "double-dipping" as you read this and have been for years. But, public employees affected by the GPO and WEP are being accused of "double-dipping" when in fact they are only receiving a single reduced benefit from two separate employers. We need to correct this misperception once and for all.
However, what is wrong with "double-dipping"? It was and still is perfectly acceptable for employees in private industry to pay into Social Security, a company pension program, 401 (k), stock options, IRA’s and Roth IRA’s, all with the same employer. If it’s OK and, in fact, recommended to diversify retirement plans for the private sector, it should be OK for the public sector. It is disturbing that many of our legislators cannot grasp the concept of how unjust the GPO and WEP are for over a third of the country's retired public employees. These laws are discrimination at its worst.
THE U S CONSTITUTION
Article 1,section 8 “ The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States, but all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the United states” Can we interpret this to mean Congress cannot tax and discriminate against a certain class of people i.e. public employees, when private workers can receive both a pension and full Social Security? Also are they invading “our general welfare” by imposing a “tax” that places many public service retirees at or below the poverty level?
Remind our elected officials the Social Security Act, August 1935.
” ....created a social insurance program designed to pay retired workers age 65 or older a continuing income after retirement.” History of Social Security, August 2002.
ECONOMIC STIMULUS
As a direct result of Congress imposing the GPO and WEP tax, public service retirees in the state of Ohio in 2001 were shortchanged $341.8 million that would have spent in the local economy. IF FOR NO OTHER REASON, ALL STATES SHOULD GET TOGETHER AND DEMAND THAT CONGRESS REPEAL THE GPO AND WEP LAW SO THEY CAN IMPROVE THEIR FINANCIAL STATUS.
MONEY FOR YOUR FAVORITE PORK PROJECT
A frequent and favorite reason stated by our Members of Congress as why we should not receive the money we contributed in good faith is, there are "no funds to cover the expense." They don’t defend that the reduced benefits through the GPO and WEP are correct and should be retained, with them it’s only a cost issue.
The money for Social Security benefits has been spent by Members of Congress for their own pork barrel projects. Every U S budget contains billions of dollars in pork barrel projects. These pork projects include, but are not limited to:
• $100,000 for the Alaska Sea Otter,
• $1,000,000 for noxious weed management at Montana State University,
• $1,000,000 for untangling traffic in North Dakota,
• $15,000,000 for a Mississippi cotton drainage system,
• $1,000,000 for a DNA Grizzly Bear study in Montana.
For a complete list of pork projects go to; www.cagw.org.
From 1964 to 2001 Congress has used $700 billion of Social Security funds for general revenue/spending projects. The Congressional Research Service, Order Code 94-593 EPW, updated August 28, 2001 stated in part, “…the trust funds themselves do not hold money; they are simply accounts. Similarly, benefits are not paid from the trust funds, but from the treasury, and as with Social Security receipts, the money used in indistinguishable. The treasury uses whatever funds it has on hand.” This means that Social Security funds are spent on pork projects, and are not sent in the form of checks to retirees as Social Security benefits.
THANK YOU
Eileen and Ken want to express thanks to the many of you who made the effort to send us a donation. Our bank account was at $33.78 following the mailing of the January/February Newsletter. We received $392.00 following our appeal for donations – thank you very much. One lady wrote; " About time I sent you some money, my husband too wants to help" and she included two separate checks. One lady sent $1.00 saying, "I wish it could be more". We appreciate her effort. To our new members we do not have set dues realizing everyone is on a different financial footing. We ask you to send what is a comfortable amount for you and consider it as an investment.
The December Newsletter cost $195.79 while the combined January/February Newsletter cost $237.82 to reproduce and mail. As you can see there is a cost savings in combining Newsletters sent by the U S Postal Service. The e-mail Newsletters will continue as in the past. Is this print type OK? We were asked to change due to eyesight limitations.
Home | GPO and WEP | Letter Campaign