“The President is out and others, too. I've had a dozen of these meetings and talking about this is a good thing,” Blunt told a crowd of approximately 125 Greene County residents.

The facts of the system

Blunt explained that when the Social Security system was created in 1935, there were 42 workers for every person who began to receive Social Security benefits with the average person not living long enough to receive benefits. The number of workers per beneficiary diminished to 16 in the beginning of 1950 and today only 3.3 workers are paying into the system for every reciptient, he further emphasized.

“In the next generation, or so, there will be only two people working for every one getting a check,” Blunt said. “If people's life spans hadn't changed then the numbers would have always been 42 to 1 and the system would have worked forever. Obviously it becomes a very different system when you only have two people working.”

There wasn’t a person in the room who disagreed with these statements.

"Unfunded liability of Social Security is $10.4 trillion" was the message displayed on an overhead screen when Blunt steered the discussion from people to dollars.

Through payroll taxes or FICA contributions, "as it stands now, workers pay 12.4 percent of their earned income to Social Security,” he said. Retirees receive their benefits through the redistribution of this revenue with the monthly surplus currently absorbed by other government programs. [What if the government simply pays back all it 'borrowed' from the Social Security program? Nobody asked that question? What if the country stops funneling its dollars to Iraq?]

Thrift savings

In the early 1980s, Federal workers were offered a Thrift Savings Plan, a savings and investment program similar to corporate 401(k) packages. Blunt pointed out that over the last three years the average return on these accounts was between 4.32 and 10.99 percent. The discussion of the Thrift Savings Plan was Blunt’s transition to the package being offered by the Bush Administration.

“The President says, 'Let’s put 4 percent of the 12.4 percent that already goes into Social Security into a Personal Retirement Account'”, Blunt recalled. “Let’s leave 8.2% for survivor and disability, and a foundation for Social Security. You will still get your check no matter what,” he stressed. [I'm confused here. Are workers losing some of their contribution to fund those still left in the system?]

Blunt told the crowd that he would personally choose to put his dollars in a bond fund “and a little more money in a more risky fund.” He wasn’t talking about fully secured U.S. Treasury bonds, he was instead referring to corporate or municipal AAA-rated bonds, suggesting that a portion of a traditionally guaranteed benefit would no longer be guaranteed by the Federal government. [I guess that this conservative investment advice was meant to railroad comments regarding the proven risk of market investing.]

What Blunt forgot to say

The Thrift Savings Plan is only one of three elements that make up a comprehensive federal employee's retirement package. Government workers also enjoy a Federal Employee Retirement System Basic Annuity in addition to their ability to participate in Social Security. This is in addition to any investment they choose to put towards the discussed Thrift Savings Plan. Clearly this thrift savings program is not intended to replace Social Security, but instead further enhance a guaranteed retirement insurance program. Blunt is comparing apples to oranges and comes up with sour grapes. [So how can Blunt relate to the average worker when he like other government workers of his status are guaranteed a retirement pension worth at least five times the average worker's retirement income--allowing him to maintain his current lifestyle, if not close to it?]

Are the fish biting?

How receptive was the audience to what Blunt had to say here at home? The best way to answer this question is to look at the dialogue after Blunt opened up the floor for questions and comments, a dialogue, explained by Blunt, where "everyone gets to talk". [This open attitude means, agree with me and I'll let you talk, doesn't it?]

“If it’s a question I will try to answer it,” he said. “If you think you have a better idea then I will listen to it and we can go on to the next question.”

The first comment came from a gentleman who opined that “Republicans just want to give money to Wall Street.”

Blunt explained that three cents on every hundred dollars would go to brokers to manage the newly created private accounts. “Certainly the people doing that will make some money but they won’t make a lot of money from any one individual.” [But by 'Wall Street,' didn't this person mean the companies that benefit from the investments?]

In 2002 Social Security income was $627.1 billion. Although each individual contributor only may be losing a small portion of his or her savings the transaction fees based upon that figure quickly would add up, the commenter reasoned.

Blunt tried to soften this loss by reminding audience members that under the current system a worker’s entire contribution is lost to the family when the worker and spouse both die. He then pointed out that retirees could still maintain a decent standard of living - even if the private investment accounts take a total loss. With the foundation every worker has with the 66 percent that would remain protected in the Trust Fund, “80 percent of the people would remain in a position to live comfortably.” “But not extravagantly,” he finished. [Did we lose 20%? And why the death analogy? Recipients need the money while they are living.]

Another local resident asked, “Three years ago you campaigned on a Social security lock box. Why are you now pushing for a Social Security plan that is different? That’s my first question," he continued, about to comment more.

Blunt cut him off.

“You get one question,” Blunt replied. “Sit down.” The congressman then brushed off the intent of the allegation. [This same short-temper showed up during a forum on the new Medicare provisions when a member of the audience at the Joplin Senior Center refused to let him off the hook in answering her concerns.]

“I think you have me confused. I think it was Al Gore who said ‘Lock Box’ until it became a joke,” Blunt continued. “I think I saw that on Saturday Night Live.”

Blunt went on to state that the plan forwarded by Bush is similar to that offered by former President Bill Clinton. But from the audience came a quick rebuttal.

“President Clinton was paying down the debt while doing this,” a lady reminded Blunt.

From the same lady came another observation and question. “Your son, Matt Blunt, says wages are going up higher than the cost of living. Do you believe that?”

The question is never answered. And the crowd goes wild.

At the first lull another man takes the floor with these comments: “Some of us have been investing for a long time in IRAs and otherwise. We're really aware of the risks. Sometimes you do lose.”

Blunt's response was: “If you had broad base, in the entire market over 10 years, you would make at least two percent,” he explained. “There may be a way to write this to guarantee a minimum benefit, but you would have to further restrict the accounts people could invest in.”

The man followed up with a simple question. “Built in safety?”

Blunt response was, “There’s not (a built in safety) because the base is so low,” he said. “Let's let everybody talk.”

From the crowd comes another question.

“Why can't the government figure out the gross income for every individual... wages, salary, and off book compensation,” a man asked. “Why use this system to decide required contributions?”

A lady from the crowd asks another question before Blunt can respond.

“All these budgets cuts and stuff is coming at us from the Federal and State level,” she exclaimed. “Your son Matt Blunt wants to take away our eyeglasses and Medicare. We feel like we are getting double whammed. We're going to end up homeless and out on the streets.”

Light applause.

“When I went to Congress I was talking about the Federal level,” Blunt responded. “What we’re talking about is the growth of Medicaid over the next couple of years.”

“Do you have anything to tell my daughter from a Federal level,” the lady then asked.

“I hear you and I appreciate your concern,” the Congressman answered back.

“My husband served 20 years in the Military; we put three kids through college,” another said. “There was no money to invest.”

Blunt responded by explaining that if workers diverted the four percent towards a private account every year, while they are between the ages of 20 and 55, the payback would be in the neighborhood of $100 thousand. [But did anyone ask what happens to folks who are not quite eligible to stay in the Social Security program--like those who are 54--how do they save up enough money for retirement? Will they simply be shafted?]

Blunt then referred back to an earlier question about taking a person's total income and assigning the same percent of contribution from every worker across the board.

“If this is done then you turn Social Security into more of a welfare system,” Blunt explained. “If we did that, then you would have a greater benefit to those who have little and have a 100% loss to those who earn more than $ninety thousand annually.” [Those who earn $90,000 probably have set up annuities for retirement; the meager monthly Social Security reitrement payment hardly would support a lifestyle to which they may have become accustomed.]

From the crowd another lady talks about the intricacy of the issue.

“This is a tremendously complex problem,” she said. “What do you think the chances are of having Congress put together a bipartisan commission?”

Blunt replied by agreeing that a bipartisan commission would be an easy thing to set up and further stated that “if we can't do it this year then, maybe, we will have a better idea next year.”

A lady named Sue thanked Blunt for holding the meeting and listening to the attendees.

She let the Congressman know that she will not be affected by the new plan either way. She pointed out that she had previously participated in the Federal Employees Thrift Savings Plan.

“I was a Federal Employee,” she said. “My little thrift plan fell by 50 percent when the stock market fell.”

Blunt asked, “Did you stay in the program?”

She answered, “Yes.”

Blunt asked, “How fast did it return?”

She answered, “It hasn’t come back.”

Blunt said, “You may be the only federal employee whose account hasn't recovered.”

Eight hands are raised in the air

“We only have time for three more questions,” Blunt said. “You, you, and you.”

The first person Blunt picks uses his time for this comment and request:

Social Security is not a benefit that the government gives us. It's a benefit that we pay into involuntarily. I see the rise and fall of the stock market and also know about the depression. Social Security may not be retirement but it will be something. Whatever you come up with I urge you to make it a National Referendum so the people of the United States will have the final say on how we change (the system).

The crowd supports the suggestion through applause.

To that suggestion Blunt responded, “That’s the next best thing to a commission. A referendum would have lots of appeal because the Congress and Senators could then say, ‘It’s not my problem.’”

The next comment comes from Blunt’s next predetermined speaker:

Social Security was not intended to be the only form of income,” speaker number two said. “But we all know that’s not how it is. Without it, nearly half of the elderly would fall into poverty. I’m not sure everyone here is opposed to investing in the stock market and making money. I have since the 60s. No matter whether it (the market) goes up or down, there are risks involved - even in conservative bonds. If someone is in trouble, say from the age of 74 to 82, they could easily use up that account in a ten year period. This is with a possible 40% decrease in you guaranteed security. There are those who need the security and not the risk.

Blunt didn’t respond and immediately solicited the final question from the individual he designated to close the forum.

A young man stands up to say that this is something that can be done and will be good for the younger workers of America.

The older crowd goes wild. Meeting adjourned.

Submitted by Robert M. Brantley

Springfield, MO

from a distribution from Info at MissouriLeadership.com

edited for easier reading.

Go Back

Comments