Resolutions have been introduced in the Minnesota House and Senate calling on Congress not to tinker with Social Security.
The resolution "memorializes Congress to retain Social Security as an insurance fund," said Yvonne Prettner Solon, DFL-Duluth, one of the Senate authors. "To make whatever conservative adjustments are necessary to insure the solvency of the trust fund well beyond the year 2042, when it's projected to become insolvent. And, it avoids privatization of the Social Security program."
The proposed White House plan would allow Americans under age 55 to invest some of their Social Security savings in private accounts. Supporters said it allows workers more freedom, and maybe a bigger nest egg. Opponents say Social Security is supposed to be secure, not a gamble. The proposed state resolution expresses intent, but has no force of law.
Solon says the proposed changes would turn a decades-old safety-net program into a gamble, and the only sure "winners" are investment firms paid to manage the private accounts.
"There's the risk of outliving your account balance," she said. "The risk that the returns might go up and down. That inflation would erode your purchasing power. Those people who have less, would get less, because they couldn't save as much. And, that there's not the assurance of family insurance benefits."
The proposed privatization plan would change Social Security "as we know it," Solon added.
"Currently, we have retirement benefits for as long as we live. They don't fluctuate with the stock market," she noted. "There are annual cost of living adjustments. There are benefits for people who have been working for low wages, or have taken time off to have children, and for care giving, disability and survivor benefits for families. This is a program that says that we have made this commitment to take care of you in old age, and if you should become disabled."
Co-authors of the Senate bill, SF 1648, are Sens. Dille, Ranum , Dean Johnson and Sparks. A similar House resolution (HF 1427) is authored by Representatives Sieben, Sandra Peterson, Lesche, Atkins, Lille, Sertich, Michael Nelson, Hornstein, Arron Peterson, Mariani, Weltil, Greiling, Bernady, Carlson, Leider, Irv Anderson, Hausman, Ruth Johnson, Paymar, Sailer, Murphy, Hilstrom, Mullery, Kahn, Hosch, Kelliher, Entenza, Hilty, Thao, Ellison, Loeffer, Dill, Rukavina, Slawik and Dorn.
Share
Resolutions have been introduced in the Minnesota House and Senate calling on Congress not to tinker with Social Security.
The resolution “memorializes Congress to retain Social Security as an insurance fund,” said Yvonne Prettner Solon, DFL-Duluth, one of the Senate authors. “To make whatever conservative adjustments are necessary to insure the solvency of the trust fund well beyond the year 2042, when it’s projected to become insolvent. And, it avoids privatization of the Social Security program.”
The proposed White House plan would allow Americans under age 55 to invest some of their Social Security savings in private accounts. Supporters said it allows workers more freedom, and maybe a bigger nest egg. Opponents say Social Security is supposed to be secure, not a gamble. The proposed state resolution expresses intent, but has no force of law.
Solon says the proposed changes would turn a decades-old safety-net program into a gamble, and the only sure “winners” are investment firms paid to manage the private accounts.
“There’s the risk of outliving your account balance,” she said. “The risk that the returns might go up and down. That inflation would erode your purchasing power. Those people who have less, would get less, because they couldn’t save as much. And, that there’s not the assurance of family insurance benefits.”
The proposed privatization plan would change Social Security “as we know it,” Solon added.
“Currently, we have retirement benefits for as long as we live. They don’t fluctuate with the stock market,” she noted. “There are annual cost of living adjustments. There are benefits for people who have been working for low wages, or have taken time off to have children, and for care giving, disability and survivor benefits for families. This is a program that says that we have made this commitment to take care of you in old age, and if you should become disabled.”
Co-authors of the Senate bill, SF 1648, are Sens. Dille, Ranum , Dean Johnson and Sparks. A similar House resolution (HF 1427) is authored by Representatives Sieben, Sandra Peterson, Lesche, Atkins, Lille, Sertich, Michael Nelson, Hornstein, Arron Peterson, Mariani, Weltil, Greiling, Bernady, Carlson, Leider, Irv Anderson, Hausman, Ruth Johnson, Paymar, Sailer, Murphy, Hilstrom, Mullery, Kahn, Hosch, Kelliher, Entenza, Hilty, Thao, Ellison, Loeffer, Dill, Rukavina, Slawik and Dorn.