Share The Burden
Dear Editor:
It has been reported in the news that Sen. Charles Grassley (Rep), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, brought forth a proposal by Sen. Robert Bennett (R-Utah) that reduces guaranteed benefit levels for future retirees, based upon income received over a person’s career. This has been brought forward as a possible solution for the “imminent danger” faced by the Social Security fund, a key part of President Bush’s second term agenda.
Why is it that Congressmen and Senators are always ready and willing to cut back on the wage earner, but not on themselves? Perhaps this “solution” would make more sense if our representatives in Washington would be willing to cut their fat-cat, general fund, non-contributory, self serving, over the top, retirement program by an equal percentage. After all, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, isn’t it? Or, are the rulers better than the ruled, and above sharing the load?
It has been reported in the news that Sen. Charles Grassley (Rep), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, brought forth a proposal by Sen. Robert Bennett (R-Utah) that reduces guaranteed benefit levels for future retirees, based upon income received over a person’s career. This has been brought forward as a possible solution for the “imminent danger” faced by the Social Security fund, a key part of President Bush’s second term agenda.
Why is it that Congressmen and Senators are always ready and willing to cut back on the wage earner, but not on themselves? Perhaps this “solution” would make more sense if our representatives in Washington would be willing to cut their fat-cat, general fund, non-contributory, self serving, over the top, retirement program by an equal percentage. After all, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, isn’t it? Or, are the rulers better than the ruled, and above sharing the load?
posted by Sam Schoolsky | 11:56 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home